Michael Schellenberger, a well-credentialed environmentalist, argues that we should be moving away from most solar and wind-power, and toward nuclear energy. I’ve read Schellenberger’s 2019 article at Quillette, I’ve listened to an hour-long podcast in which Schellenberger outlined his concerns, and I’m 1/4 into his new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.” I’m reevaluating my love for renewables and my concern about nuclear, fact by fact. See also, “We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal.”
Schellenberger idealizes nuclear much like the solar and wind advocates have idealized renewables. Let’s look under the rug a little more during our attempt to reduce emissions, climate change, and environmental health risks. I’m putting together a lithium article (socio-economic-political impact, pollution-health impact) for our local Sierra Club newsletter that I edit, so yes, that’s part of the iceberg of things to consider for renewables, besides migratory birds, birds of prey or bats (which fossil fuel pollution, extraction processes and habitat destruction also potentially damage). However, Schellenberger’s glossy account of nuclear fails to mention the huge Superfund problem with the uranium mine sites on the Navajo Reservation, and why they don’t really want a repeat of this over by the Grand Canyon or elsewhere. The WHIP waste storage site (probably his “football field”-sized waste disposal site he refers to) has had some radioactive waste spills that required further mitigation recently; it’s not fail-proof, nor is the transport to get the waste there. And Chernobyl WAS a HUGE disaster, where other nations’ doctors had to step in to help the victims with their myriad health problems. Maybe Schellenberger’s not old enough to have registered to the severity of Three Mile Island, or he dismisses it as he does Fukushima and other incidents
(https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank). Our government labs do computer modeling to “test” and steward our stockpile, versus live tests, because its recognized that there are risks with these materials, and why there’s political concern as to whether Iran or North Korea are just doing medical and energy use of nuclear technology and processing, or weapons. Depleted uranium exposure is another issue (https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/DU_Eng.pdf), the likes of which Schellenberger seems to dismiss, saying spent uranium can be held in one’s hands. Schellenberger’s glossy writing style reminds me of PR writers in the fossil fuel industry who have long been employed to cover up issues, or CEO Wayne Woolsey saying he’d drink a glass of his fracking fluid during his presentations to our local farmers from whom he was buying mineral rights. Granted, none of our current energy sources or our concept energy sources under development are perfect. But his idealism makes one wonder who donates to his organization or buys him coffee or lunch. Reread the Deception Dossiers.
somethingsmatternow, I must assume you are offering observations in good faith, and I have to agree with a number of your points. Mostly, of course, we agree on “follow the money.” The same applies to every position on renewables, clean energy,, climate change – – all coming back to anthropogenc global warming.
What astounds me is that it is child’s play to make an overwhelming case for reducing use of fossil fuels quickly, and eliminating their use as soon as feasible, without ever mentioning the climate.So,why hasn’t this case been made? There is an enormous global industry that depends on solving the problem of anthropogenic global warming. Follow the money. If there isn’t a problem, the money goes away.
Contrary to the popular narrative, Chernobyl was a non-event. A total of 56 people died over 34 years, fewer than die in Britain every year from falling out of bed. Three Mile Island was actually proof that nuclear safety systems work. The opponents of nuclear power attempted to force the industry into insolvency through needless increases in limited-value-add expensive processes and repetitive reports and tests required for approval. By the time the Fukushima plant was built, it had run out of money to raise the plant five meters above sea level, which would have prevented the tsunami from causing any harm.