Skip to main content

View Diary: The Nuclear Shill Apologizes. (157 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  data (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The technical data on all things energy related is highly specialized. I don't know what your background is, but even with my physics degrees I don't pretend to be an expert.

    What I do is read those who sound like they know what they are talking about and hope they really do.

    One of the best sources (even though they have a "green" bias) is the oildrum blog. If you don't read it regularly I suggest you give it a try. It seems to get contributions from various industry insiders and other experts.

    I don't know if you are familiar with the work or physicist David Goodstein, but he is worth reading. He wrote the book "Out of Gas" a few years ago. A good place to start is on the Wiki page about him:

    The book is mostly about oil (and coal) but he has covered nuclear in some of his writings as well.

    I've heard the arguments about the small impact of the price of Uranium on the total cost of electricity production, but others seem to think it will have an effect.

    You will be more effective in promoting your point of view if you are less partisan and more open to information from other sources. You called yourself a "shill" in jest, but if you get branded as such for real you will lose your audience.

    •  I'm quite sure that I'm familiar with the word (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LIsoundview, wonmug


      It's not like I suddenly made it up or started hearing it a few days ago.

      There was once an entire diary written on this site called "The Nuclear Shills Among Us."   It was about me.  

      Actually the question worth asking is this:   Are nuclear experts - that would involve professionalism - less qualified than members of Greenpeace to discuss nuclear energy?  Specifically, was Glenn Seaborg unqualified to discuss nuclear energy because he was a lifelong advocate of nuclear energy and a lifelong proponent of the expansion of nuclear energy?   Does it matter that Glenn Seaborg's paycheck was connected with his professionalism in connection with nuclear energy?

      Clearly in a rational world there would be nobody more qualified to discuss nuclear energy than Glenn Seaborg.   He won the freaking Nobel Prize.   He was one of the most respected scientists of all times.   Is there some reason that his word and analysis is less worthy than some mom who throws a few bucks to Greenpeace every couple of months to assuage her consumerist guilt?

      I hear all sorts of things about how nuclear professionals are not supposed to discuss nuclear energy.   The very same people do not - in general - argue that doctors are unqualified to discuss the status of the medicine - including the economics and risks of medicine.   In fact this is simply a another case of "nuclear exceptionalism," the argument that situations that are important in all lines of inquiry are somehow applicable only in the nuclear case.   The most notorious example is waste.   When people use the words "climate change" they are explicitly avoiding calling the situation what it is:   A fossil fuel "waste" problem.

      People are always advising me how to say what I say, but I say what I say in the way that is characteristic of who I am.   No one can accuse me of forcing anyone to read my writings.  I am told if I say x in such and such a way, I will lose people, or if I am do not write about y succintly people will not follow me.   Still I soldier on and take what I can get.

      I am not particularly interested in peak oil.  I favor phasing out oil, not just because supplies are limited but because oil is unacceptably dangerous to the environment.   The sooner we recognize that we cannot and should not use oil, the better in my view.   I would like to see oil replaced before it is all removed from the earth's crust.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site