Episode 191: Planet of the Humans and the Green Energy Industrial Complex

I agree with the point that nuclear should stay on the grid an perhaps be expanded somewhat, but waste disposal is an externality that should at least be paid by the company (if you don't want to nationalize most of the energy production, which would be preferable --- btw its such a fucked up system to have the government build infrastructure, wich makes up most of the entry cost, but then gets none of the profit, because the supply side has been monopolized by capital...) also I dont think it is such a unimpressive number to completely upstart solar & wind to 5 percent of the marketshare in 8 years with just an investment of less than 100bn. put that on the scale of a 1tn green new deal over two decades and ... who knows? I guess someday we'll run out of phones. will we be living in sort of like a scrap economy for tech in 50 years and see a death grips, mad max, club in a dystopian-sci-fi 90s-movie kind of vibe? maybe biopolitics will come back so thats something to look forward to

Alexander Fuchs

darker than the fucking Turin Horse

Alexander Fuchs

I think nuclear fusion is the only way to go long term. It won't be ready in time to save us from a lot of damage caused by climate change, but hopefully we can at least slow down climate change until nuclear fusion is ready.

I have to second (or third) that your take on nuclear power lacks a very basic discussion of the biggest issue, which is nuclear waste! to be clear, I am a biologist, not anti-nuclear, and still think it is one of cleanest energy sources we have, but... The statistics of deaths per power produced are obviously biased towards an energy source like nuclear, that accumulates incredibly toxic waste that we'll still have to deal with in millennia, but otherwise is relatively clean and only unsafe in natural disasters or due to extreme human error. Given the terrible effect radiation has on most living things, not taking into account the accumulating nuclear waste when proposing this as the solution to climate change is a bit like not discussing carbon accumulating in the atmosphere when burning fossil fuels... it will hit us in the long run. Still, great pod!

I need that Basel III episode you teased at the end of 190! This is more of a differentiator than creep biographies. C’mon, nerds, be nerds!

Jay

By the way, dead pundits society did an extremely good and sober episode on nuclear power. Message me for the episode if you want.

NYCM&AHole

Goddamn this episode was darker and more nihilistic than an NYPD private message board

NYCM&AHole

I don’t disagree with the perceptions of nuclear being exceedingly harmful and wasteful. However in simple searches unless all the research is from nuclear propaganda I do think it’s a viable conversation to have that solar and wind energy with their relationship to coal/oil is just as toxic for the environment. Comparatively to them nuclear is the better option. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/uncategorized/will-solar-power-fault-next-environmental-crisis/ https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull21-1/21104091117.pdf https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-reasons-why-nuclear-clean-and-sustainable https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close Now I won’t pretend that the opposition to this point is wholly incorrect. The article below has a conversation showing the inaccuracies in articles written in 2012-2013 about the notion of wind turbines producing more waste than nuclear. https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38386/did-the-wind-power-industry-produce-more-radioactive-waste-than-nuclear-power-pl What I gleaned from the documentary and the research is my preconceived notion that renewable energy is completely devoid on fossil fuels is flat out wrong. -Yp

You're worried about disposal of used solar panels & wind turbines but not nuclear waste? Aren't you dudes from Seattle? Perhaps you've heard of Hanford.

David

While I have great respect for this podcast usually, you really are wearing some rose-colored glasses on nuclear power's effects, and additionally hydropower. . . So first, the glaring inaccuracies on nuclear: Steve says there are "no deaths from meltdowns" (apparently just discussing France), then later the 3 of you refer to both Chernobyl and Fukushima-- yes, multiple short term deaths there, AND additionally while it is hard to exactly measure the cancer deaths from radiation releases that follow not just these 2 disasters alone but many smaller ones, which any respectable (not Nuke-funded) scientific studies would put in the multiple thousands. Instead you divert by noting that steam released by the towers is clean-- big whoop!! On the larger level, under capitalism (which your podcast usually does a very good critique of), real safety is stinted and people die from routine radiation releases, uranium mining, etc. as well as the major disasters. For good coverage of Nuke power, Harry Shearer's Le Show has done GREAT coverage over the past many years, including the lies about nuclear power, "Clean, safe, too cheap to meter!!", while the US private nuke industry is hugely subsidized (like the Kochs) by the federal government. Yes, Germany and France are evidently still mildly "socialist" enough to monitor their nuke power industries and limit direct deaths, but as Neoliberalism takes more and more control, that's less likely to happen. And I should quickly mention the mountain of nuclear crap sitting in Utah that has radioactive half-lives in hundreds of thousands of years. I also recommend the podcasters Google Hanford Nuclear Site, a horribly polluted site half the size of Rhode Island with nuclear waste seeping into nearby rivers, watersheds, and the water table. You also must be unaware that water from rivers used to cool nuke plants in the Northwest has then been released, heated, into local rivers, wiping out huge fish populations that die off. Shearer had a piece on that in the last year, covering how the EPA then came in and decided the local river was NOT a habitat for salmon runs and its all good if the local salmon are exterminated forever, 'coz hey, humans need the "cheap" (gov't. subsidized) power . . . . And a note on dams-- These destroy large watershed areas and lots of biodiversity and both plant and animal life, and there are so many human dams on the planet that they have literally slowed the speed of the earth's orbit. Ultimately, human meddling with natural water courses causes immense amounts of destruction. You all MAY be aware that the state of Louisiana has lost tons of land and is eroding away faster in the South because of channels cut across the state to benefit the oil industry, and within 50 to 100 years up to 1/3 of the Southern part of the state may erode away due to sea rise combined with human damage from damming, diverting the Mississippi and natural watersheds, etc. . . . Next time, please don't support the Nuke Power lobbying industry so uncritically. I usually expect better from this podcast, which is why I support it on Patreon!!

Mark Schneider

Wonderful episode boys, it's so refreshing to hear some sense about climate change for once. I agree with your take-aways from the film both positive and negative. Some of you may know it already but anyone reading this I recommend checking out the work of Leigh Phillips on climate change.