A Radical Proposal for Nuclear Energy

  • Kevin Mequet
Part of the Radical Theologies book series (RADT)


As the previous chapter outlined, we are at a stage of crisis in our current paradigm and use of energy. It is with this crisis point in mind that we offer up a proposal for a radically new and different way of thinking about energy. Put plainly, the reason that we have not been able to cross the nuclear threshold is because of our adherence to a thermodynamic model. The only thing we know how to do with nuclear energy is to make boilers or bombs, to use it as a fuel to heat stuff, or to fuel an explosion to blow stuff up.1 From fire to oil, our primary view of fuel is as a means of generating energy by burning and then attempting to utilize the heat that results. A steam engine burns a fuel, originally coal, to boil water and then turn a wheel. Most people confuse energy with heat, and sunlight with the heat of the sun. For a nuclear power plant, we use nuclear fissile materials to heat a medium such as water that then turns a generator with its steam. But what if heat is not the point of energy production but rather the by-product? What we need is a new energy paradigm.


Dynamic Core Nuclear Element Magnetic Dipole Field Paramagnetic Moment Radical Proposal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    For a good resource and overview of nuclear power, see Richard L. Garwin and Georges Charpak, Megawatts + Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See George Monbiot, Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 2007).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1938, renewed 1966), pp. 151–152.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    See Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan, Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005)Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    See Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1980)Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    See James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Penguin Books, 1987).Google Scholar
  7. 12.
    The initial moves toward developing an alternative way to explain earth’s magnetic field began with this and several theoreticians’ work in the early 1960s, F. A. Goldsworthy, “Magnetohydrodynamic Flows of a Perfectly Conducting, Viscous Fluid,” Journal of Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 11, 1961, pp. 519–528.Google Scholar
  8. 13.
    Christopher J. Talbot and Martin P. Jackson, “Salt Tectonics,” Scientific American (1987), Vol. 257, No. 2, pp. 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 16.
    H.-P. Bunge, C. R. Hagelberg, and B. J. Travis, “Mantle Convection with Variational Data-Assimilation,” GJI (2003), Vol. 152, pp. 1–22Google Scholar
  10. 17.
    See the recent article on “Polar Magnetic Upwelling” by Arnaud Chulliat and his colleagues, which supports this hypothesis: A. Chulliat, G. Hulot, and L. R. Newitt, “Magnetic Flux Expulsion from the Core as a Possible Cause of the Unusually Large Acceleration of the North Magnetic Pole during the 1990s,” Journal of Geophysical Research (2010), Vol. 115, B07101, doi:10.1029/2009JB007143.Google Scholar
  11. 21.
    Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann, “Theory of the Fermi Interaction,” also known colloquially as the “Strange Theory,” Physical Review (January 1, 1958), Vol. 109, No. 1. See also the discussion in James Gleick, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (New York: Pantheon Books, 1992), pp. 335–341.Google Scholar
  12. 23.
    Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 216.Google Scholar
  13. 24.
    Part of the difficulty of reading Difference and Repetition is the fact that it draws on such technical, mathematical, and scientific knowledge and draws upon it to create an extraordinary philosophical synthesis. In the United States, the divide between the Humanities and the Sciences is so extreme that most scholars lack either the scientific expertise to read Deleuze in a competent manner in relation to mathematics and physics—Manuel De Landa, Intensive Science and Virtual Philosophy (London: Continuum, 2002)Google Scholar
  14. Clayton Crockett, Deleuze Beyond Badiou: Ontology, Multiplicity and Event (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
  15. 25.
    See Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, p. 229: “Once depth is grasped as an extensive quantity, it belongs to engendered extensity and ceases to include in itself its own heterogeneity in relation to the other two [length and breadth of a horizontal plane].” See also Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), p. 40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Clayton Crockett & Jeffrey W. Robbins 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin Mequet

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations