11 ms·

This is a bunch of standard issue cornucopian gee-whizery. I can't help but notice that nowhere in this article does he cite so much as one, single, solitary n

This is a bunch of standard issue cornucopian gee-whizery. I can't help but notice that nowhere in this article does he cite so much as one, single, solitary number or statistic to back up any of his claims. Here is essentially how this entire page read, for me: "Q: Will we ever run out of resources?" "A: No, of course not, that's silly!" My personal favorite: If global warming is a problem, why, then, we can just reverse it! Of course! Why didn't we think of that before?!?

nandemo 15y ago
> Here is essentially how this entire page read, for me: "Q: Will we ever run out of resources?" "A: No, of course not, that's silly!" Well, then you need to read better. For instance, he estimates that nuclear and solar energy will last us 5 billion years. If he's wrong by a factor of 1000 that's still 5 million years which is not too bad. And there's a whole page of references: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/references.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/references.html PS: I expect that some people will assume I'm in the same "camp" of the author, but I'm just pointing out that the criticism above is unfair.
- brudgers 15y ago
  The estimates of 5 billion (or 5 million) years ignores the potential side effects of widespread distribution of the current generation of fissionable fuels and the level of political will required to develop an infrastructure for coping with these potentials. In other words, if one is inclined to ignore issues of this magnitude, why bother mentioning nuclear at all when no less questionable assumptions about relevant factors would allow a similar projection based on solar energy alone?
  - jerf 15y ago
    Well, we also have 5 million/billion years to deal with those problems. Our descendents, if they are still using nuclear power, will be no dumber and less capable than we are of solving problems, and probably a great deal more so. If nothing else, "blast it into space" is likely to be feasible within our lifetimes. (And not just "leave it in orbit", but drop it somewhere where it won't be a problem anymore. Space is full of such places; space arguably is nothing but such places. Space is big.) Besides, what massive problems are you worried about? On that timescale, radioactive waste just dissipates. It doesn't build up over millions of years. If it could build up over that time scale, it wouldn't be "radioactive" in the first place.
    - brudgers 15y ago
      >"Our descendents" One of the potential issues which accompanies nuclear power is the "what descendents?" issue. Sterility and infertility and death are known side effects of exposure to common fissionable materials and their byproducts. One need not even consider the potential consequences of deliberate human activities designed to harm people or fulfill religious prophesy. In other words, it's not so much the last 4.99999 billion years that's a concern as the 1000 years which must precede them.
      - pjscott 15y ago
        Er, that's why you don't go around exposing people to high-level radioactive waste. You stick it in a cooling pool to let the really nasty isotopes decay, then store it with radiation shielding. If you want to get really fancy, and have enough excess neutrons, you can even get rid of worst of the waste by turning it into something else. On the list of existential threats, mass radiation poisoning really doesn't rate very high in likelihood.
        brudgers 15y ago
        PU-239 has a half life of 24k years. Or to put it in perspective, if the Neanderthals had been using it, we would be running the risk of stumbling over cooling pools where significant quantities of nasty isotopes were still decaying - assuming anyone could build a cooling pool with a 24,000 year service life. The half lives of U235 and U233 are significantly longer (approx. an order of magnitude).
        pjscott 15y ago
        Wait, what? Pu-239, U-235, and U-233 are not waste. They are fuel. Those are all fissile isotopes that we burn in conventional nuclear reactors. The isotopes you get rid of in cooling pools are the highly radioactive ones with short half-lives.
      - jerf 15y ago
        I'm sorry, but that's so stupid I don't even know where to start. Radiation isn't a magical malevolent force. Your fears are so disconnected from the real world, you might as well be worried about aliens eating you for breakfast.

nandemo 15y ago

> Here is essentially how this entire page read, for me: "Q: Will we ever run out of resources?" "A: No, of course not, that's silly!" Well, then you need to read better. For instance, he estimates that nuclear and solar energy will last us 5 billion years. If he's wrong by a factor of 1000 that's still 5 million years which is not too bad. And there's a whole page of references: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/references.html http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/references.html PS: I expect that some people will assume I'm in the same "camp" of the author, but I'm just pointing out that the criticism above is unfair.

brudgers 15y ago
The estimates of 5 billion (or 5 million) years ignores the potential side effects of widespread distribution of the current generation of fissionable fuels and the level of political will required to develop an infrastructure for coping with these potentials. In other words, if one is inclined to ignore issues of this magnitude, why bother mentioning nuclear at all when no less questionable assumptions about relevant factors would allow a similar projection based on solar energy alone?
- jerf 15y ago
  Well, we also have 5 million/billion years to deal with those problems. Our descendents, if they are still using nuclear power, will be no dumber and less capable than we are of solving problems, and probably a great deal more so. If nothing else, "blast it into space" is likely to be feasible within our lifetimes. (And not just "leave it in orbit", but drop it somewhere where it won't be a problem anymore. Space is full of such places; space arguably is nothing but such places. Space is big.) Besides, what massive problems are you worried about? On that timescale, radioactive waste just dissipates. It doesn't build up over millions of years. If it could build up over that time scale, it wouldn't be "radioactive" in the first place.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    >"Our descendents" One of the potential issues which accompanies nuclear power is the "what descendents?" issue. Sterility and infertility and death are known side effects of exposure to common fissionable materials and their byproducts. One need not even consider the potential consequences of deliberate human activities designed to harm people or fulfill religious prophesy. In other words, it's not so much the last 4.99999 billion years that's a concern as the 1000 years which must precede them.
    - pjscott 15y ago
      Er, that's why you don't go around exposing people to high-level radioactive waste. You stick it in a cooling pool to let the really nasty isotopes decay, then store it with radiation shielding. If you want to get really fancy, and have enough excess neutrons, you can even get rid of worst of the waste by turning it into something else. On the list of existential threats, mass radiation poisoning really doesn't rate very high in likelihood.
      - brudgers 15y ago
        PU-239 has a half life of 24k years. Or to put it in perspective, if the Neanderthals had been using it, we would be running the risk of stumbling over cooling pools where significant quantities of nasty isotopes were still decaying - assuming anyone could build a cooling pool with a 24,000 year service life. The half lives of U235 and U233 are significantly longer (approx. an order of magnitude).
        pjscott 15y ago
        Wait, what? Pu-239, U-235, and U-233 are not waste. They are fuel. Those are all fissile isotopes that we burn in conventional nuclear reactors. The isotopes you get rid of in cooling pools are the highly radioactive ones with short half-lives.
    - jerf 15y ago
      I'm sorry, but that's so stupid I don't even know where to start. Radiation isn't a magical malevolent force. Your fears are so disconnected from the real world, you might as well be worried about aliens eating you for breakfast.