Fast Fission Podcast #15 – MP3 File
This story will come as no big surprise for my pro-nuclear blogger friends, but for those of you who are not quite as engaged with the online energy debate, you really need to know about this.
Since I was a teenager I’ve enjoyed the magazine Scientific American. I’ve viewed them as informative and a good source of credible, accurate information about emerging trends in many fields of science and technology. The periodical began in 1845 and over the years its contributors have included, according to their website, more than 120 Nobel laureates and such amazing thinkers as Albert Einstein and Jonas Salk.
This it way it pains me so much that this magazine has deteriorated to the level of utter trash and garbage. I will think long and hard before I ever again purchase a copy of the magazine. In this podcast I discuss why.
When I first read the Scientific American article I was outraged and angry, but now I’m just sad. Sad that a respected journal and a source of information for more than 100 years has deteriorated to the point that it is willfully being used as a platform to push a political agenda with total disregard to fundamentals of research and sound science.
Links:
- A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables by Mark Jacobson and Mark Delucchi at the Scientific American
- Critique of ‘A path to sustainable energy by 2030′ by Barry Brooks at BraveNewClimate.com
#1 by Simon Filiatrault on November 11, 2009 - 7:23 AM
John, you are not the only one sad about the state of science on those issues. Like we said in a conference about nuclear vs wind, the only tool you need to understand is a 5$ calculator. I was laughing with sadness this morning when I heard someone said this about wind farms… “Free energy for ever”.
Yes the wind is free, but the means to grab energy from it is far from free and the means to store this energy when the wind is not blowing cost 3-4x times more only to maintain it than what we pay now from hydro or nuclear.
My sadness goes away fast when I see people like you fighting for common sense in energy policies.
Keep on the good work. I always look forward to another fast fission or podcast to listen to while driving to work. Better than the nonsense we hear on the radio.
Thanks,
Simon
#2 by Simon Filiatrault on November 11, 2009 - 7:52 AM
One more thing, I saw the same state of change since a couple of years back in the New Scientist publication. Anti-Nuclear, Alarmist-Hysterical view on climate change, even some anti-human, anti-development views. To see this in a science magazine, is another sign of the “green-political” agenda winning over common sense.
#3 by DanYurman on November 11, 2009 - 11:05 PM
Another critique of SCIAM at ‘Idaho Samizdat’ on the nuclear fuel cycle and greenhouse gas emissions
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/11/nuclear-fuel-cycle-and-greenhouse-gas.html
#4 by Jacob on November 19, 2009 - 1:59 AM
John, when reading the SCIAM article, I was thinking, this cannot be real. I’m not an engineer, but just a guy who is interested in energy issues. I find it astonishing they went forward with an article with such faulty data.
One important aspect that is completely ignored in the article, is national security. Here in Scandinavia solar energy is usess, all major rivers are harnessed already and wind blows inconsistently. Should we (even if technically feasible) run a power cable from, say, from a solar farm in the politically unstable North Africa to up here in order to power ourselves? I find the idea completely irresponsible.