• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Is Un-Scientific American Becoming Shell American?

December 6, 2009 By Rod Adams

A few weeks ago, there were a number of reactions to a recent front page article in Scientific American titled A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables. John Wheeler produced a This Week In Nuclear episode in response to that article that he called Un-Scientific American in which he expressed his disappointment as a long time fan of the magazine and his decision to think “long and hard” before ever buying another issue.

Barry Brook wrote about the article on his excellent Brave New Climate blog in an entry titled Critique of ‘A path to sustainable energy by 2030′. That post generated 160 comments, many that were full of facts and some strong emotion from normally restrained engineers and scientists.

I recently followed a link from a Twitter post from someone interested in energy that landed me on the Scientific American web site. Before I could view the article of interest, I was asked to take a survey that started with the following statement: “Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel.” The poll then asked me to answer a multiple choice question selecting the largest hurdle to an increased use of Liquified Natural Gas. My problem in answering the poll, which I had to do to progress to the article I wanted to read, was that the best answer was not on the list of choices – All of the Above. (I always hated that situation when taking multiple guess tests.)

After taking the poll, here is what the page looked like.

That is what led me to asking the question in the title of this post. Just how many times can you see the logo of one of the largest companies in the world on the site of a supposedly reliable scientific publication before you start to question the publication’s credibility on the topic that drives that company’s business and governs its long term profitability?
I know there are people who will vociferously argue with me, but my analysis tells me that anyone who pushes the idea that there is a hope for human society to shift from fossil fuels to a narrowly defined set of “renewable” energy sources that pointedly excludes atomic fission is either hopelessly innumerate or simply lying through their teeth. Because I am pretty sure that statement is true, I understand why fossil fuel interests (broadly defined to include anyone who wants to keep making money by finding, extracting, transporting, financing, marketing, refining, or selling coal, oil, natural gas or any of their byproducts) talk a lot about their plans for development of wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy and either ignore or discourage the use of nuclear energy.

Related Posts

  • More non-nuclear prescriptions from Shell

Filed Under: Uncategorized

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience, now serving as a Managing Partner at Nucleation Capital, an emerging climate-focused fund. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial discussion and analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology and policies for several decades. He is the founder of Atomic Insights and host and producer of The Atomic Show Podcast.

Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Kit P says

    December 6, 2009 at 12:08 PM

    Yes, Rod it is irritating when the fossil part of the energy industry panders to idiots. It is irritating too to use such arguments to support a nuclear agenda.

  2. Rod Adams says

    December 6, 2009 at 2:15 PM

    Kit – my point is not that fossil interest “pander” to factually incorrect renewable advocates – the people you so kindly refer to as idiots. I am convinced that fossil advocates – especially those in charge of marketing or responsible for bottom line affecting decisions – actually create and sustain those incorrect suggestions for future energy systems.
    You have often stated that you were once a Navy nuke. However, you also tell us all that you think that biomass burning power plants are a better choice for power supply needs in the 25-150 MW range. Can you briefly explain the advantages as you see them using objective critera for unchangable technical limitations? From my research, the only advantage I can find for burning wood or ag waste is that the developers MAY not need to get regulatory approvals.
    Note – I capitalized MAY because there are places where sensitive measuring systems – like human noses and eyes can figure out that no biomass plant can be emission free. All of them pump out enormous quantities of waste that must be dumped into our shared atmosphere.

  3. Neurovore says

    December 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM

    This is an interesting issue coming from a magazine that featured an article talking about the bright future of nuclear power and new nuclear technologies back in 2005. Did something change in its focus from then until now?

    • Tom Blees says

      December 24, 2009 at 2:12 PM

      I’m told Sci Am was bought out by a German company. You remember Germany, that country that pumps out anti-nuclear propaganda on their official government web sites? Might explain their change in view.

  4. Kit P says

    December 6, 2009 at 8:43 PM

    First off Rod, large renewable energy power project must meet the same environmental and safety requirements as a nuke sans off site radiological assessments. Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are just as likely to oppose a biomass plant as a nuke. There is no free lunch.
    The first place to start is to look at the environmental impact of waste biomass. My rotting wood is polluting your sailing area. It is perfectly legal too. I do not need a NPDS permit to create a rat’s nest.
    I even have a spread sheet where I can show that capturing biomass can offset ghg associated with uranium mining and processing for a large nuke. There is an interesting link between uranium and phosphor mining. Take, for example, manure from poultry CAFOs in Maryland. It does not take a very big project fixing one problem to offset all the ghg from a nuke. It illustrates how small the environmental impact of nukes.
    Manure waste and forest health issues are massive and energy is one way to pay for better management.
    Just for the record, I do not subscribe to the idea that renewable energy can supply very much of the grid in an industrialized world.

  5. katana0182 (Dave) says

    December 6, 2009 at 11:42 PM

    Biomass has its uses…it’s practically free energy sitting around in all of the cellulose and vegetable matter for the taking. Plus a lot of the biological processes can be helped along by the sort of low-grade waste heat that nuclear power can produce. If you look at the Canadians, at Bruce they have a lot of biological processes going using the waste heat generated by the 8 CANDU plants there. Ethanol refinery, greenhouses, lots of stuff like that. Coal to liquids can become biomass to liquids – you could generate a good part of the liquid and gaseous fuels used in the US just from biomass alone.
    I would agree that biomass has a definite role to play in the future. It’s free, and it helps us manage the environment better. But by itself, it isn’t enough, really, it’s far, far too little. Ya gotta have something else, such as nuclear power.

  6. Kit P says

    December 7, 2009 at 8:20 AM

    “it’s far, far too littl”
    About the same size as nuclear power.

  7. Trackback says

    December 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM

    Trackback message
    Title: Copenhagen – Who pays the bill?
    Excerpt: Much of the discussion in Copenhagen will centre around money, but whose? Governements looking to protect their economies from change are protecting oil companies, not you or me
    …
    Blog name: [lang_en]Song for Jasmine[/lang_en][lang_fr]Chanso

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • David on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Rod Adams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • David on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • Rod Adams on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked
  • paul wick on Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Atomic Show #297 – Krusty – The Kilopower reactor that worked

Nuclear energy growth prospects and secure uranium supplies

Nucleation Capital’s Earth Day in Atherton

Atomic Show #296 – Julia Pyke, Director of Finance Sizewell C

Solar’s dirty secrets: How solar power hurts people and the planet

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2022 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy