Neon Green Energy (E363)
Added 2026-03-13 01:13:47 +0000 UTCComments
Love all the nuke-stans and their “akshually…”
I am
2026-03-18 01:41:21 +0000 UTCFukushima releasee enough radioactive material to make a portion of the prefecture uninhabitable. The point is that regulations are malleable. Institutions break down inertia sets in. If its just a building, it gets abandoned, but this stuff cant be abandoned. It has to be managed. You cqn say that about any industry, sure, but the scale of damage that results even from one Chernobyl every 100 years is too big. its the scale that is the problem, not the frequency.
Last Years Man
2026-03-17 16:12:59 +0000 UTCWow, the level of factual inaccuracy in this episode is disheartening. I would have hoped that someone on your team would have at least a basic understanding of nuclear power. This was just one misunderstanding after another and I really don’t know where to start. Nuclear power is only as unsafe as it is because of people like this who say shit like “meltdowns are inevitable” and “all meltdowns are catastrophic” it’s like, meltdowns are a sign of poor operating procedures that could be regulated meaningfully, and almost all meltdowns, like 3 mile island, don’t release any radioactive material. They’re just a pain in the ass for everyone at the plant. This was just so infuriating and full of bullshit as most anti nuclear stuff is.
Mara
2026-03-17 13:34:18 +0000 UTCI deeply appreciate you putting out this episode, as I too have heard otherwise reliable leftist or progressive voices advocating for nuclear power and have found myself having to play chicken little in arguments. The fact of the matter is that no matter how low the potential for an accident may be, what sets nuclear power plants apart is that an accident only has to happen once for the damage to be irrevocable. There are no second chances and forced displacement of residents is the only possible outcome. The experience of Fukushima fully backs up Sean's analysis. First off, geologists had discovered, well prior to 3/11/2011, that there was evidence of a tsunami having reached much farther inland than the official safe zone estimated by the Japanese government (not only that, but only a century or so prior). When they reported these findings, they were not only called luddites but wanna-be sooth sayers and TEPCO successfully lobbied against any new disaster studies on the basis that it was too expensive. The second thing is that it wasn't the reactors that were ultimately damaged by the tsunami. What caused the meltdown was was a loss of power to the cooling units and subsequent damage to the pools that were cooling spent nuclear fuel (a problem Sean mentioned in the episode). It was that spent nuclear fuel that eventually leaked and created radiation exposure. Even a perfectly designed system can't fully account for human error. IMO, anyone who advocates for nuclear power must do so with the acknowledgment that an "occasional" Chernobyl, 3 mile island, or Fukushima is inevitable. If you're comfortable with that, then have it. I'm not.
Last Years Man
2026-03-17 12:00:59 +0000 UTCGreat episode! Nuclear energy history and saucers, two of my faves. 😀 Bring Sean back!
Vanessa Lucio
2026-03-16 16:21:40 +0000 UTCOh I like this guy. And Brad is always a treat.
tbolls89
2026-03-16 09:59:19 +0000 UTCThe waste argument is pretty tired. All the nuclear waste that the US has created in the last 70 years can fit in the area of a football field. They bad outcomes like Hanford(my home state) were not modern and were primarily weapons plants. And there was a plan for the waste in Nevada, its half built and got canceled so that Obama could cash a favor to get support from Harry Reid.
Blaine Brown
2026-03-16 06:41:06 +0000 UTCas someone who works in environmental science and has a long standing interest in nuclear energy, there is a lot of context missing here. Of course, the privatization of energy is highly concerning and should be discussed. Also, using nuclear energy for AI data centers is not good for society. But conflating that with nuclear=bad, is frustratingly shallow. Yes, presently nuclear energy contributes about 20% of US electricity, more than coal, and comparable to all other renewables combined (this is after years of decommissioning nuclear power and heavily subsidizing wind/solar). It does so quietly, effectively, and safely, it’s been working for decades, and the only nuclear energy incident in the US they point to is Three Mile Island which in fact was not a disaster and safety protocols were effective. Compared the the size and scope of industrial disaster tolerated in other sectors, it is monumentally safe.
Charlotte Ring
2026-03-16 00:03:39 +0000 UTCWell that’s a disappointing episode. A lot of Sean’s points are either not relevant to modern nuclear power, factually inaccurate or based purely on vibes. Frustrating to listen to as somebody who both supports renewables like solar and wind, but also knows the science, data and history of nuclear.
Ben Dean
2026-03-15 23:10:53 +0000 UTCEveryone saying “talk to a nuclear scientist” in the comments are completely missing the point. The fact is that we live in the real world where idiots and assholes run everything and that makes nuclear insanely dangerous. You can fantasize about your green gay space communist future (I make fun of that, as a communist myself) with nuclear power leading the way but there is no perfect world. We’ve been on the verge of the worlds most terrifying nuclear disaster in Ukraine for years now, it is insanely lucky that one of the worlds biggest nuclear power plants hasn’t been blown up yet.
Fellow Worker
2026-03-15 22:54:16 +0000 UTCI'll be one to say I wasn't disappointed and instead refreshed that nuclear criticism was expressed for once.
Joyce
2026-03-15 21:02:31 +0000 UTC
