Not against nuclear power

[ALB]

Article in latest issue of the Skeptical Inquirer by an ex-member of the SPGB and WSPUS on the prejudices against nuclear power whereas it may be the only way out, even within socialism, if global warming gets out of hand due to the continued burning of fossil fuels:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4iyHBOd9Ou_b3lkSHJSLThTeTg/view

[jondwhite]

Our 1990 pamphlet Ecology and Socialism states

Quote:

Future generations will rightly regard the decision to utilise nuclear power on a widening scale for electricity generation, let alone for military purposes, as an act of folly, especially as right from the start it was known that there was no satisfactory solution to the problem of disposing of the radioactive waste that inevitably results from the process.

then

Quote:

The eventual choice must be left for the majority to decide after a full consideration of all the facts, including any possible side-effects.

It's not clear whether this is a choice between renewable energy sources or including non-renewable ones.

[ALB]

According to our ex-member nuclear energy is or can eventually be a renewable source:

Quote:

Numerous books exist about the science of nuclear energy that may act as antitodes to public misinformation. A good one is Prescription for the Planet (2008). It discusses not only the integral fast reactor, which can recycle and generate vast amounts of energy safely from all existing nuclear waste (the buildup of which is often the primary reason for opposing nuclear), but also the plasma converter that has the potential to solve our garbage problem.

In any event, we are where we are. Despite not knowing at the time how to deal with the waste (and still not yet being in a position to do it in practice), nuclear power has been developed and exists. There's no point in closing them all down in socialism since even when not used to generate electricity the nuclear reaction will still continue. If global warming gets out of hand  (not identified as a potential problem in 1990) it might turn out to be lucky that nuclear energy was developed.

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm not impressed by his association that some on the eco-liberal side are anti-vax.I happen to be anti-Pharma but it doesn't automatically mean i accept the irrationality of anti-vax. It is recognition that Big Pharma are motivated primarily by profits and like many corporations have used their political lobby power to impose their products or escape from responsibility of the product.  And i can fully understand the criticisms of mono-culture industrial-sized farming for cash-crops impacting on certain regional eco-systems to its detriment. But it is pointless to go to the prairies and break it down into small holdings. I doubt there is enough agricultural expertise left in America to become small farmersAre the renewables and the accompanying energy efficiency programmes able to substitute for fossil fuels without the need for sustainable nuclear energy? After all electricity generation is less than a quarter of emissions and almost three-quarters of energy use can be saved by very rudimentary approaches in conservation and efficiency.  Like GMO,  i don't accept nuclear power as a silver bullet solution to problems that exist only within the capitalist system. As i think you say, in socialism, it will be very much horses for courses. Africa, for instance,  does not require centralised power plants and connected electric grid to be built …it can be locally produced by a diversity of renewables. 

[alanjjohnstone]

This article may be of interest for those who wish to get a bit deeper into the nuclear energy issue and environmentalism. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38326-nuclear-power-is-not-green-energy-it-is-a-fount-of-atomic-waste

Quote:

The World’s 438 nuclear power plants make only a 3 percent dent in yearly CO2 production compared to if they were natural gas. Each of the 438 individual nuclear plants contribute less than seven thousandths of one percent to CO2 reduction.The World Nuclear Association claims that 1,000 new nuclear power plants will be needed by 2050 to combat CO2 buildup and climate change. The MIT estimate also assumes 1,000 nuclear power plants must be in operation by 2050. Using the nuclear trade association's own calculations shows that these new power plants will offset only 3.9 gigatons of CO2 in 2050; 3.9 gigatons out of 64 gigatons is only 6.1 percent of the total CO2 released to the atmosphere in 2050.If those 1,000 nuclear power plants were cheap and could be built quickly, investing in atomic power reactors might still make sense. Lazard Financial Advisory and Asset Management, with no dog in the fight estimates that the construction cost of those new power plants will be $8.2 trillion to reduce CO2 by only 6 percent. Lazard also estimates that solar or wind would be 80 percent less expensive for the equivalent amount of peak electric output.According to the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016, the average construction time for 46 nuclear plants that began operation between 2006 and 2016 was 10.4 years, not including engineering, licensing and site selection. Contrast that with a two-year design and construction schedule for a typical industrial-scale solar power plant. Atmospheric CO2 levels will increase by almost 70 ppm during the 35 years it will take to construct those 1,000 new nuclear power plants.

   

[Author]

Posts