Nuclear Energy, Space and Humanity's Future | Robert Zubrin | The Human Progress Podcast Ep. 30

Robert Zubrin joins Chelsea Follett to discuss the world-changing potential of nuclear energy and space travel, as well as the Malthusian forces that threaten humanity's future.
Transcript: www.humanprogr...
Robert Zubrin is an aerospace engineer and the author of several books on space exploration, with a particular focus on Mars. His work has been subject of favorable press coverage in The Economist, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, the London Times, The Washington Post, Fortune Magazine, Newsweek, and many other publications, and he has appeared on the Discovery Channel, CNN, NPR, and the BBC. He is the founder and President of the Mars Society and was formerly a Staff Engineer at Lockheed Martin Astronautics. He holds a Master's degree in Aeronautics and Astronautics and a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from the University of Washington.
Keep an eye out for his forthcoming book on nuclear energy and learn more about his most recent book, The Case for Space, here:
www.humanprogr...
The Case for Space: How the Revolution in Spaceflight Opens Up a Future of Limitless Possibility
• The Case for Space: Ho...
Chelsea Follett is the managing editor of Human​Progress​.org, a project of the Cato Institute that seeks to educate the public on the global improvements in well‐​being by providing free empirical data on long‐​term developments. Learn more: www.cato.org/p...
The Human Progress Podcast
RSS Feed: anchor.fm/s/57...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
*************
Want to find HumanProgress.org elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / humanprogressorg
Twitter - / humanprogress
Instagram - / humanprogressorg
*************

[@callmeishmael7452]

This is great. You are a natural born teacher Mr. Zubrin.

[@erichtomanek4739]

Climate change!? No.

[@bentray1908]

Its insane how few views this has

[@adrianayub872]

This is awesome. Please continue to make content and have on amazing people like Robert. Thanks.

[@fiedag]

I love this guy.

[@Ittiz]

You want a 1hr interview? Invite Robert Zubrin on and ask him one question at the start and then sit back and twiddle your thumbs for an hours. He's great!

[@bentray1908]

Excellent. Crazy that the speed of the first reactor build was 3 years.

[@davidhenry5128]

I like Dr Zubrin's approach to this subject, he is not saying we need new reactor designs to have safe nuclear fission power, instead he points out the only real problems with light water fission reactors. These problems are public perception and high cost due to government regulation that is influenced by powerful outside sources. I do however think that some of the new designes offer advantages in cost and capabilities.

[@kenriehl7852]

Great content, thank you.

[@k_dash99]

This channel deserves more subscribers, I enjoy its content more and more. It saddest me people turn the eyes on less important matters. Please keep the good content.

[@CallMeNighthawk_]

Absolutely brilliant!! Made it really easy to follow and understand (speaking as a non-scientifically educated/minded person). Thanks you for this content.

[@ChrisGerstle]

Why is it so hard for people to silence their phones during an interview??

[@michaelferri6790]

Is progress the same thing as progressivism

[@DrMackSplackem]

0:30 Haha, going by those press credentials, I wouldn't trust Dr. Zubrin as far as I could throw him! However, I've known for ages that he is one solid dude, and a true visionary.

[@jamesdyhouse2490]

Dr Robert Zubrin is a nuclear salt water catalyzed fusion rocket possible? In bombs , fission reaction catalyze fusion reaction, so ca a fission nuclear rocket create conditions to catalyze fusion ?

[@goldman77700]

Same tbh lol. Legacy media drivel. Should've started Mars Society and Lockheed Martin as an engineer and went from there.

[@416dl]

Terrific explanation at our current state of affairs regarding energy.

[@michaelferri6790]

😊

[@robaquarian]

How did you get the manuscript?

[@jamesdyhouse2490]

Dr Robert Zubrin is a nuclear salt water catalyzed fusion rocket possible?

[@Nine-Signs]

Nuclear powered propulsion of myriad forms has been possible for half a century, there are designs of nuclear powered rockets from lots of places including NASA but we have tended not to go down that road as molten salt or not, rockets explode occasionally and it's a real bad thing to have radioactive materials spread across a massive area of debris when what's left hits the deck. That and it was estimated just from launches using such propulsion that the cancer rates within a few square miles of the launch area would also increase as with the best will in the world, upon ignition some radioactive alpha and beta components are expelled. Only safe way to do so to my mind, it to take an empty reactor up there, take the fuel separately in a black box enclosure that would survive and be recoverable from a launch failure, and then put the two together in space to power X Y Z. Which is being seriously looked at today as we can build reactors now that are the size of a few suitcases but knock out thousands of kW of power which in space would be extremely useful for any craft going beyond the moon due to the fallout of useful solar energy the further out you go. The nuclear decay batteries of Voyagers 1 & 2 have certainly more than proven the longevity potential of utilising forms of nuclear energy for space travel. Best wishes.

[@vin.handle]

As a layman, it seems to me we need to transition to renewables and fusion and one way of transitioning is to use nuclear.

[@Nine-Signs]

If we transition all fossil fuel energy sources to nuclear we would require circa 20 thousand new nuclear reactors in the 1GW range that would burn through planetary uranium reserves in about 20 to 40 yrs and produce 5 years worth of global emissions just from the dement of building them. That and in a warming world reactors become less efficient meaning they produce less power at a higher price per kWh over time. Idea is lovely, reality precludes it I am afraid.

[@Junglebtc]

@@Nine-Signs A hybrid of Nuclear + Gas (Carbon capture where practical) for the heavy lifting base load power and Solar/Wind/Hydro where geographically logical?

[@Nine-Signs]

@@Junglebtc Well if you think about it we technically already have that just nothing like in the balanced way we require so the lions share for most nations still comes from burning legacy fuels, but what you say there is perfectly rational. I would just add though with carbon capture and storage (CCS) the trouble with that particular tech is it requires specific types of geology to utilise carbon storage and after 20 years of R&D (and lord knows how many billions) best humanity has managed come up with is a 45% efficiency penalty after many years of trying to lower that penalty. Basically in a CCS plant you have to burn 45% more materials to get the same power output of a normal plant, which makes them uneconomically viable as they would require massive subsidies per plant far beyond what is already given to nuclear plants due to the additional fuel and maintenance, not to mention the ecological damage from getting the extra fuel needed. I'm all for shoving it wherever possible, but it's cost to benefit to date prevents it from being upscaled which is why you've been hearing about it for 20 years but as of yet not seen a single commercial CCS plant and to be honest having spoken to eminent engineers and scientists on the topic, I doubt we ever will given such hurdles. On the lighter side of load, solar, wind, hydro is more than enough, there is no reason for any residential house in developed nations to be unable to afford electrical power in this day and age, other than capitalist greed. Here in the UK for example, if we taxed unearned income from dividends and rents at the same rates as earned income from work, we would raise £14 billion a year, enough to put a 5kW solar install + battery into every UK home within 10 years, freeing millions from the tyranny of capitalist energy corporations. It won't be done as it is not profitable to capitalists to do so. And that always has to be factored in, as that minority of people in this world are the people who prevent systemic changes that are required for a viable future, while they gain ever more of the wealth all workers produce but see little of. We have all the solutions we need in effect for a viable, adequate, dignified basic life for all. But that is simply not possible under now global capitalism and that is the choice physics is leaving us with, we can have perpetual growth capitalism for a little while longer, or we can have a steady state democratised economy in perpetuity, not both.