Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

/222/ Nukes 4 Kids ft. Emmet Penney, pt. 1 (Patreon)

Published:
2021-11-02 07:01:01
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Downloads

Content

On the global energy crisis.

Nuclear energy advocate Emmet Penney (@nukebarbarian) joins us to discuss the growing energy crunch in Europe, the US and beyond. Nuclear power is opposed by an unholy alliance of environmentalists and neoliberals - yet it seems the best solution for providing plentiful, reliable, and clean energy. As a demand, it seems an open goal for the left - so why are so many resistant?Part 2 is available here.

Links & Readings:

Nuclear Barbarian - pro-nuclear podcast & newsletter

ex.haust - Emmet's other, co-hosted pod

Undeveloping America, Emmet Penney, The American Conservative

Political Life in the Lottery of Babylon, Emmet Penney, The American Conservative

How we happened to sell off our electricity, James Meek, LRB 

A Question of Power: Electricity and the Wealth of Nations, Robert Bryce, Public Affairs (book)

Files

Comments

Nathan Siegrist

Astonishingly weak rebuttals of nuclear scepticism around the 34 minute mark. The question of nuclear waste is completely sidelined to talk about nuclear accidents? It's not even a convincing tangent! "No one died" in Harrisburg? People are generally positive to nuclear in Ukraine? Surely, the objections regarding safety relates to the risks _showcased_ by cases like Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Fukushima and not the total sum of fatalities nor public opinion in Ukraine. Sadly, the episode is not very convincing. It fails to adequately adress criticism and worry regarding nuclear, and the arguments for nuclear are so scattered with hyperbole that it is hard to appreciate some of the valid points underneath (again, even less so since the arguments against are very weakly adressed - if at all). As someone who does not really engage in the discussion on nuclear energy but is somewhat sceptical of dogmatic proponents and critics, this episode felt very preaching to the choir-y to me

mickthebrick

This guest was poor. Way too many dramatic pauses from him as if he expected applause. I'm on the side of nuclear definitely but this guy is a poor advocate for it.

Rusty Shackleford

I demand to see this dude's sick Zoom background.

Ellis

This guest seemed more interested in advocacy than any actual engagement with the political and technological questions of nuclear energy. Also very American-centric? For a nuclear energy advocate I would expect a working knowledge of the French model. They succeeded at exactly what he's trying to advocate for, why is he not examining their successes and failures? Also no coverage of what I find to be the most interesting challenge of nuclear energy; every nuclear disaster is caused by corruption and incompetency, something likely inevitable in any project which is so capital-intensive. That can't be waved away as simply 'mistakes' when its endemic to the model. Admittedly some interesting anecdotes. Will definitely look into what the Russians did, and interesting that neither Ukraine or Japan have been permanently soured on nuclear. Seems like the spectacle does more to dissuade than the actual experience of those disasters.

big microbe

This is terrifying and also a really good episode (about to start part two). I read William T. Vollmann's "Carbon Ideologies" when it came out, and there's a pretty long section about him going to Fukushima prefecture with a pancake frisker to take radioactivity readings. Other than the drainpipes, and the actual heaps of waste, the ambient radioactivity levels were the same as those he took in Sacramento, where he lives. Trying to reconcile that, and this episode, with having listened for years to Harry Shearer's "Le Show," what with its usual segment of (pretty alarming) news of the nuclear industry. Another thing- I was in college in the early 2000s, and I remember there being an on-campus pro-nuclear group, with the thoroughly vague name of "Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow" (CFACT). It was surprising, but I guess it makes sense, since this was before the real fracking boom. Perhaps nuclear energy could really be "Clean, safe, too cheap to meter"

Sam

Major grifter vibes. This guys a con man mark my words

Andrea

Just a reminder that French nuclear power (often treated as an example to follow) is fuelled by constant military and political interventions in West Africa. Not to speak of the vast externalisation of costs in French nuclear energy that are often not taken into account by those who use the French case as a positive example.

Reto

In my opinion, this was a rather weak episode. The guest basically provided an advertisement for nuclear power. I have nothing against that but shouldn't you as host be more critical of such one-sided perspectives. Why not ask some critical questions (also not in episode 2) or compare it to other opinions from other guests (like "Malthusians", Andreas Malm or someone from a environmental perspective). I know nothing about energy and power grids and I've learned a lot but we definitely need a debate, not just someone making some one-sided argument. Is it technocratic to ask for a more scientific or critical perspective here? This just leaves a stale taste.

Shatner's Bassoon

A question rather than a comment. In the Aufebunga Bunga vision of socialism, would there still be economic growth (and therefore an ever-growing demand for energy, nuclear or otherwise)?

Steve Bowbrick

Listen, I love you guys but this is demented. Your proposal is to build THOUSANDS of new nuclear plants, in every nation on earth, every one of them (unless you know something I don't) on the coast or by a body of water. You propose building them, I guess, across a period maybe 20-120 years from now, a century during which the already-committed temperature rise is, I don't know, let's say 1.8-2.0 degrees and by the end of which sea-level rise will be, you know, appreciable. Also, of course, many of these plants will be built in regions that, by the end of that period, will quite likely be uninhabitable because too hot (although I guess you'll have plenty of power for the A/C). Meanwhile, you'll want to be disposing of the huge quantities of radioactive waste (two orders of magnitude more than presently produced?) in DOZENS (hundreds?) of geological stores that don't presently exist and - this is the best bit really - the replacement cycle means you'll need to be building AND decommissioning HUNDREDS OF PLANTS PER YEAR by the end of the period (burying the old ones? Shooting them into space?). And I know you'll say I'm being catastrophist, because geniuses like Emmet will somehow have managed to short-circuit the epic construction cycles inherent in current nuclear and everything will be all right by mid-century but there's a good chance that quite a lot of this will have to be done in settings that will have been pretty chaotic for a while, quite possibly in militarised or failed states, with populations immiserated by warming and by the shitty response of the capitalist state. I'm not anti-nuclear. The safety argument is obviously bogus (deaths from coal must run into the millions) - although multiply the number of plants by 100 and put them in vulnerable, underresourced places and, you know, we might see a few more meltdowns. Let's keep and upgrade the current fleet, urgently switch the German and Japanese plants back on (switching them off was obviously a dumb idea), even build some more - but honestly, depending on nuclear to stabilise emissions and secure continued growth in the long run is not about HOPE, it's about DESPERATION.

Hemakekh

Based and Promethianpilled, Bunga Boys! Fire up that fission