Michael Shellenberger testifies before Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on nuclear energy

Jan. 15, 2020 - Author and environmental activist Michael Shellenberger makes his case to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology for why nuclear energy should be a national priority as a solution to climate change

[@doritoification]

Fantastic job Michael, you really are the rational environmentalist and making a real difference too!

[@ronpreece3429]

Politicians get this into the education system ASAP its critical !!!

[@EdPheil]

VERY GOOD Testimony!

[@chapter4travels]

I completely disagree with his excuse for excluding advanced nuclear, if for no other reason than high industrial heat output that LWR's can't produce. Electricity is only about 25% of total energy use and trying to electrify everything is unproductive.

[@chapter4travels]

You might try to contact him, he seems accessible. Everywhere I look, the uninformed consider waste to be one of the biggest issues there is. This barrier, I think is much bigger than proliferation or plants exploding as he references.

[@infini_ryu9461]

@@chapter4travels He's not excluding it, he's saying that old pp's are fine for generating electricity.

[@spacetimemalleable7718]

I agree with 98% of what Shellenberger said. However his hesitancy on doing research for new reactor designs disturbs me. Just look at what the Chinese are doing with Gen IV reactors. There are 6 potential G4 reactor designs as blessed by the Gen IV Int'l Forum. The Chinese are building prototypes for each of them to study and decide which one(s) are best for specific environments. They plan to standardize on 1 or 2 when their evaluation is complete. Is the U.S. awake yet?

[@Bvic3]

What he said is that the US is not standardised enough.e He doesn't say new designs should not be researched, but that: 1) There will be no breakthrough cutting costs due to new designs 2) Old technologies are working fine and can be cheap and safe His main main point is that the main problem is the anarchy and lack of unified strategy. And that new designs are used as bullshit rationalisations to keep the anarchy going on while hoping those will lead to a revolution. New designs are a bonus. The US could organise its standardisation strategy around one of the new designs. But in the end, a revolution can only come from political will + industrial policy.

[@jsn1252]

@@Bvic3 Point 1 is objectively wrong. If you strip away everything that comes with keeping water a liquid well above its atmospheric pressure boiling point, you slash construction time and cost. This is what many gen IV designs do. ThorCon is already making such quick progress in its partnership with the Indonesian government that they'll be near delivery in the time it takes South Korea to build a legacy reactor design. As for point 2, "working fine" is a pitiful argument. The first steam boilers were little more than giant tea kettles and "worked just fine." Just fine wasn't good enough, and flued, fire tube, and water tube boilers were developed.

[@enemyofthestatewearein7945]

I think he is just saying be realistic, make best use of what we already have, by all means look at possibilities, but don't be waiting for a technological breakthrough to save the world. The likes of Elon Musk are dangerous in this regard because they seduce the world with false promises based on things that don't really work. Some of us remember the dot-com days in the late 90s, look what happened there. Fixing energy is rather more important, so we need to grow up and put aside the hype.

[@nuanil]

The primary problem with reactor costs in the USA is that nearly EVERY reactor is a completely new design, which means they always go over budget, over time, and have excessive teething problems.

[@fraznofire2508]

First few minutes already very good, the way the congressman or whatever he is immediately commented on the unrealistic pie in the sky goals of 100% renewable energy

[@cliffm6566]

Michael you’re a freaking star. Somehow with intelligent rational guys like you we will find our way out of this renewable energy hell we’ve been in for decades.

[@fillinman1]

Actually, that was the best congressional hearing I've ever seen!?! Oh, I guess there could have been substantial editing.

[@onederb71nln83]

The problem with Shellenberger is likeability. I watch a lot of his stuff and agree with him an his friends/peers he talks to. If I need a job done this is my guy but I would never want to get a beer with him... and thas fine, my friends are dumb Fs like me and I would never vote for any of them for public office. No one is going to listen now and to get people to care... He has ideas and reason for the Homeless problem in CA and is from CA. But I don't think people like him and I don't know if it is because of his message.

[@tmaloney4210]

Well done, Michael.

[@fillinman1]

Mr. Maloney, I commented above that the whole notion of CO2 caused global warming is Baloney. ha. Had to look up how to spell it. I'm sure you've tried "..just like baloney with an "M". But then found that nobody knew how to spell baloney?

[@fillinman1]

Yes, didn't Mr. Shellenberger do a first class job?

[@corystansbury]

I like how they just sorta make up variants of his name. Reminds me of the SNL fake ad for an Alexa tuned for elderly folks. It responded to anything remotely close.

[@arthemis1039]

Benedict Cumcumberbatch

[@todjones6571]

this guy seems to be ignorant of Thorium Liquid Salt technology

[@lockerius4208]

Schellenberger? Well he mentioned it at least twice......

[@therflash]

Thorium molten salt reactors are waay overhyped. First of all, thorium is not like uranium-235. It is not a fissile material. It's much closer to uranium-238, it's just a fertile isotope. Just like U-238 can be bred into plutonium-239 which is fissile, similarly, thorium can be bred into uranium-233, which is fissile. So, it will have to be a breeder reactor on a completely new fuel cycle that hasn't been tried on large scale. Thorium is new, untested and somewhat tricky, and its benefits are mainly that it can't be turned into weapons quite as easily. If the weapons weren't a concern, it'll be much easier to use the endless stockpiles of depleted uranium-238 that we have and turn that into fuel by breeding plutonium from it. Molten salt reactors are a separate technology, you can make molten salt uranium or or molten salt thorium reactors. No matter what type you make, molten salt reactors are also something new, untested and somewhat tricky, with many unsolved problems. Lot of people keep shouting that thorium molten salt reactors are the answer to everything, but in fact, they're just a wishfull combination of two untested and underdeveloped technologies. On top of that, it would have to be a breeder AND power reactor at the same time, which also complicates the chemistry significantly. We don't know how to do thorium well and we don't know how to do molten salt, research is needed. But there doesn't seem to be any big reason why it should be particularly difficult. I would love for these reactors to exist, but the truth is that they currently don't. They're like hoverboards, everybody wants one, but nobody really knows how to make one, while plain old skateboard might be cheaper, safer and over all better.

[@chapter4travels]

@@therflash You're right about thorium and wrong about generation IV reators (MSR's being one of them). The construction license has been issued for Russia's BREST reactor and dozens of designs are in the licensing stage around the world right now.

[@therflash]

@@chapter4travels Don't get me wrong, I'm just here to counter the LFTR spammers. Gen 4 reactors are great, MSRs are really interesting design, but combining new fuel like thorium with new technology like MSR, and making it straight out breeder with built in galvanic separation with a closed fuel cycle in a single step is just stupid. Plain old reactors are just practically better than doing such a radical step, because in nuclear, the radical steps are the ones that never get finished. Also, gen 4 reactors are currently researched, they don't actually exist on commercial scale yet. Anyway, if you know what's the difference between MSR and thorium, you aren't the intended audience of my comment.

[@chapter4travels]

@@therflash Just help them, they are on the right track, they just haven't followed up on the rest of the research.

[@charliemoncur736]

Excellent testimony- have just placed an advanced order for your boo in Europe.

[@fillinman1]

My respect for Shellenberger increased bunches watching this. Hope he ends up a leader in the newly thriving U.S. nuclear industry. Or whatever he wants. But how much longer do we have to keep hearing about "decarbonization"? People are getting that renewables are baloney. Isn't it past time to get that CO2 caused "global warming" is baloney?

[@todjones6571]

A proponent of crony capitalism.

[@eriklakeland3857]

Yes because anybody who disagrees with you is clearly a shill 🙄

[@Bvic3]

The choice is between crony capitalism that works and crony capitalism that doesn't. Energy infrastructure is huge. And it's anyway heavily regulated for reliability, safety and cleanliness. The choice is between good and bad regulations, not free market vs communism.