Left Politics and Nuclear Power

[RED DAVE]

When the current debates on nuclear power first began here, after the beginning of the Fukushima Crisis (which is ongoing), I was shocked to see that there were comrades here who were pro-nuke. The anti-nuke movement of the 1970s-80s was a product of the Left in response to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I am amazed that there has been a reversal of position of some leftists.

I also note that there seems to be a political division with regard to pro-and anti-nuke politics. Broadly speaking, Trotskyists and anarchists seem to oppose nuclear power, while, broadly speaking, Maoists, Stalinists and Technocrats seem to favor it. Also, more authoritarian unaffiliated comrades seem to favor nuclear power. I am unaware of any organized left group that favors nuclear power. I could be wrong on this.

Let's discuss this.

RED DAVE

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The issue for me here isn't an outright, absolutist stance on nuclear power.

I think all can see that nuclear power had, has and will have a place in the developed world for a while yet.

The issue is that, between using fossil fuels and alternative energy sources as mainstream sources of energy, nuclear must (and often is) seen in the guise of a stop-gap. What i'm concerned with, is that it doesn't become a semi-permanent stop-gap that endures for a century or more.

This is why I am broadly supportive of what Germany are doing - taking the initiative. They already get 17.5% of their energy from alternative sources, so we know the science works and that, on a scientific level, it's scalable. The issue is whether they can plan effectively enough to channel the energy from source to market. If they can do that, and they achieve their aim of getting 35% of energy from alternative sources by 2022, the effect will be hugely positive on Europe and the wider world.

We should, all the time, be striving for a non-nuclear world with no commensurate loss in energy availability. This German proposal is giving alternative energy the kick up the backside it needs, as opposed to the governments of France and the UK, kicking the issue of energy into the long grass, partly because of the inherent flaws of our political system meaning a constant focus on short-termism and populist issues.

[thälmann]

i think the support of nuclear power lies in the fact that the bourgois media said for centuries that we cant live without it. thats untrue as several scientists proof.

and which left tendecies support nuclear power. i think somebody cant generalize this.
the first great struggles against nuclear power in the 70s in germany was in a big part led by maoist and ml organisations, which also were very militant at such events.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

To tell the truth I have absolutely no clue about nuclear power. Like how it's made, how it's stored, how it effects the environment, how it's used, the waste, etc.

[RedSunRising]

Science worship due to the class base of revleft.

[Psy]

Science worship due to the class base of revleft.
What is wrong with science worship, without science communism would be impossible.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If you can't see the inherent humour in the paradoxical phrase, 'science worship', then you'll never laugh.:lol::lol::lol:

[black magick hustla]

Science worship due to the class base of revleft.

most people like science actually its a lot of academic wackos who write a 10 pg long essay about the dialectic of enlightment

[The Vegan Marxist]

Why are you pressing this topic here, Red Dave? Can't keep up with the actual scientific thinkers on the Science section who actually know about nuclear energy, unlike you and a select few of others?

In fact, how many times are you seriously going to press this forward? We're surely not running out of thread space amongst the other threads.

[RedSunRising]

most people like science actually its a lot of academic wackos who write a 10 pg long essay about the dialectic of enlightment

Yeah the wonders of AIDS and electronic survailance. :rolleyes:

"It would be possible to write a whole history of the inventions made since 1830 for the sole purpose of providing capital with weapons against working-class revolt." (Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 15, Section 5).

Karl Marx.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Yeah the wonders of AIDS and electronic survailance. :rolleyes:

"It would be possible to write a whole history of the inventions made since 1830 for the sole purpose of providing capital with weapons against working-class revolt." (Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 15, Section 5).

Karl Marx.

Science will be what provides a cure to AIDS, mate. ;)

As for electronic surveillance, you're seriously going to use that as justification in being anti-science? Trust me, you allow the religious to come to power, they'll use electronic surveillance just as much, and they're the strict "anti-science" group, remember!?

As for Karl Marx's quote, again, seriously? You can write a whole history of inventions made that were used to benefit the people, not the corporate capitalists as well! It works both ways. It's not science to blame, it's those who're wielding science!

[RED DAVE]

Why are you pressing this topic here, Red Dave?Because I think there's a serious political issue. You remember politics, don't you?


Can't keep up with the actual scientific thinkers on the Science section who actually know about nuclear energy, unlike you and a select few of others?Typical Maoist bullshit.


In fact, how many times are you seriously going to press this forward? We're surely not running out of thread space amongst the other threads.If you can't stand the threads, get out of the sewing machine.

RED DAVE

[RedSunRising]

Typical Maoist bullshit.


Huh?

As thailmann pointed TVM isnt being Maoist.

[Old Mole]

In protetsts against nuclear power many tendencies have been represented, not just trotskyists and anarchists. To me those that are for nuclear power seems to be only those who identify with some bourgeois power i. e. parliamentarians, people that like some third world "antiimperialist" and so on. BTW when did RedSunRising claim to be "anti-science", that isnt exactly the same as being opposed to the "worship of science" which actually is a major problem. You shouldnt believe something just because it is "scientific", ever heard about bourgeois science?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Typical Maoist bullshit.


:laugh:

[black magick hustla]

Yeah the wonders of AIDS

dont tell me you are a secret icg fanboy




and electronic survailance. :rolleyes:

"It would be possible to write a whole history of the inventions made since 1830 for the sole purpose of providing capital with weapons against working-class revolt." (Capital, Vol. 1, Chapter 15, Section 5).

Karl Marx.

yes and we put a man on the moon what is your point? everything that exists is contaminated by capital.

[blake 3:17]

I'm always shocked by Leftists or "progressives" who are pro-nuclear energy. From power plants to weapons, they are unacceptable.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

^^^Well, we can be idealistic and utopian if we want, but we have to accept that, for the time being, nuclear power MUST be utilised in some form, otherwise there would be mass energy shortages in the developed world and a general drop in living standards for the poorest in society, as you can bet the bourgeoisie wouldn't be in it with us!

Whilst i'm not pro-nuclear, I can recognise that it definitely has a role to play until alternative sources of energy are more developed. This article I found today perhaps elucidates the point:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower

The key, is ensuring that nuclear facilities are safe, well-guarded and overall fit for purpose, and that they are built with a short to medium term view in mind, with the endgame being an economy powered by alternative, renewable, non-carbon sources of energy.

[Psy]

In protetsts against nuclear power many tendencies have been represented, not just trotskyists and anarchists. To me those that are for nuclear power seems to be only those who identify with some bourgeois power i. e. parliamentarians, people that like some third world "antiimperialist" and so on. BTW when did RedSunRising claim to be "anti-science", that isnt exactly the same as being opposed to the "worship of science" which actually is a major problem. You shouldnt believe something just because it is "scientific", ever heard about bourgeois science?

We must show the peasants that the organization of industry on the basis of modern, advanced technology, on electrification, which will provide a link between town and country, will put an end to the division between town and country, will make it possible to raise the level of culture in the countryside and to overcome, even in the most remote corners of land, backwardness, ignorance, poverty, disease, and barbarism - Lenin

The leftist argument for nuclear power is from a industrialist standpoint looking at the utility nuclear power plants produces, basically they produce electricity which is good.

[graymouser]

^^^Well, we can be idealistic and utopian if we want, but we have to accept that, for the time being, nuclear power MUST be utilised in some form, otherwise there would be mass energy shortages in the developed world and a general drop in living standards for the poorest in society, as you can bet the bourgeoisie wouldn't be in it with us!

Whilst i'm not pro-nuclear, I can recognise that it definitely has a role to play until alternative sources of energy are more developed. This article I found today perhaps elucidates the point:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower

The key, is ensuring that nuclear facilities are safe, well-guarded and overall fit for purpose, and that they are built with a short to medium term view in mind, with the endgame being an economy powered by alternative, renewable, non-carbon sources of energy.
After the revolution we will need to spend several years retooling the entire infrastructure of the developed world, during which priorities after food, clothing and shelter would go toward attaining carbon neutrality. During this period I would assume nuclear plants would not be phased out immediately, but plans would be in place to do so gradually. We'd also have to run coal-fired power plants and so on to start with - but we'd get out of it when we could.

In a way the debate combines two issues. One is the advocacy of nuclear power under capitalism - which I think is absolutely unacceptable. We simply cannot trust capitalist corporations, or for that matter the bourgeois state, to be sufficiently careful with nuclear power, to actually institute the correct safeguards and so on, that they could actually safely operate nuclear power. More disasters are likely. The other is whether nuclear power could be used in socialism. I don't think so, because as I see it, it's unsustainable and incompatible with the broader eco-socialist project that has become necessary. I think it's worth separating out the two, though, because conflating them into one big discussion creates more heat than light.

[RED DAVE]

The leftist argument for nuclear power is from a industrialist standpoint looking at the utility nuclear power plants produces, basically they produce electricity which is good.They also produce major nuclear accidents, which is bad, very bad, very very bad.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

They also produce major nuclear accidents, which is bad, very bad, very very bad.

RED DAVE

The worst accidents had warning years prior. Years before Three Mile Island American and USSR nuclear engineers realized the scale they were building nuclear reactors meant a nuclear melt down could not be contained easily as they could with small reactors. In both the USSR and American the engineers were told to shut up and they'd fix the problems once they were built and online. Really the problem is not with nuclear power being bad it is with a backwards engineering policy.

[RED DAVE]

The worst accidents had warning years prior. Years before Three Mile Island American and USSR nuclear engineers realized the scale they were building nuclear reactors meant a nuclear melt down could not be contained easily as they could with small reactors. In both the USSR and American the engineers were told to shut up and they'd fix the problems once they were built and online. Really the problem is not with nuclear power being bad it is with a backwards engineering policy.Comrade, one more time, it might well be that an enlightened, working class policy towards nukes is possible. I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

What is disgraceful is that there is a considerable number of leftists here who think that it's okay for these things to function under control of the bourgeoisie.

RED DAVE

[Robocommie]

I frankly know next to nothing about the science, logistics or environmental reality of nuclear power. I simply don't know enough about it to draw a solid conclusion either way. However, while I think it's foolish and perhaps knee-jerk to completely write off nuclear power without a really solid argument, I think it's perhaps even more foolish to simply hand-wave away all of the reservations people have about nuclear power and act as if such folks are technophobic Luddites.

[Kiev Communard]

Comrade, one more time, it might well be that an enlightened, working class policy towards nukes is possible. I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

What is disgraceful is that there is a considerable number of leftists here who think that it's okay for these things to function under control of the bourgeoisie.

RED DAVE

Judging from the Ukrainian experience (Chernobyl Catastrophe), I would say that leaving such vast power under the control of the ruling class is fundamentally wrong, whether the former be traditional capitalist or bureaucratic collectivist nomenklatura of the former USSR. I believe that uranium-based nuclear power has too many deficiencies to be retained in any feasible post-revolutionary future, and some other kind of high-energy power source should be used in its place. I am no physicist, but I believe that thermonuclear energy has potential future, if only it may be made practical in the short time.

[hatzel]

So...anybody feel like talking about energy (de)centralisation? :)

[Psy]

Judging from the Ukrainian experience (Chernobyl Catastrophe), I would say that leaving such vast power under the control of the ruling class is fundamentally wrong, whether the former be traditional capitalist or bureaucratic collectivist nomenklatura of the former USSR. I believe that uranium-based nuclear power has too many deficiencies to be retained in any feasible post-revolutionary future, and some other kind of high-energy power source should be used in its place. I am no physicist, but I believe that thermonuclear energy has potential future, if only it may be made practical in the short time.
Chernonbyl shows that the bureaucracy of the USSR had become so corrupt they ignored warnings from the KGB that Chernobyl had critical flaws and the KGB so was inept they ordered a power loss test on Chernobyl knowning about Ignalina reactor that ran away when scrammed.

[jake williams]

Comrade, one more time, it might well be that an enlightened, working class policy towards nukes is possible. I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

What is disgraceful is that there is a considerable number of leftists here who think that it's okay for these things to function under control of the bourgeoisie.
It's disgraceful that anyone would support the control of the oil or coal industries by the bourgeoisie, and both are clearly more harmful than the nuclear industry, and probably not just because of scale. For that matter, no one should support the control of alternative energies by the bourgeoisie. I really don't think it's clear that anyone here does.

There's no intrinsic politics of nuclear power. Almost all energy on Earth (basically, whatever isn't geothermal) is obtained directly or indirectly from nuclear energy - that from the sun. There are certainly better or worse reactor designs, and it may well be on balance that uranium fission isn't a worthwhile energy source for economic reasons, safety reasons, or both. The data generally comes out pretty mixed, but I think there's an edge to the anti-nuclear case where there are viable alternatives other than coal, and possibly even a slim edge to the anti-nuclear case where the alternative is coal, although that's much less clear. But you actually have to have the argument, because almost no technologies are intrinsically harmful, and the peaceful use of nuclear power is not one of them.

[pranabjyoti]

Trotskyists and anarchists seem to oppose nuclear power, while, broadly speaking, Maoists, Stalinists and Technocrats seem to favor it. Also, more authoritarian unaffiliated comrades seem to favor nuclear power. I am unaware of any organized left group that favors nuclear power. I could be wrong on this.

Let's discuss this.

RED DAVE
Another blatant lie from a trot. I want to know how do you know that?

[RED DAVE]

Trotskyists and anarchists seem to oppose nuclear power, while, broadly speaking, Maoists, Stalinists and Technocrats seem to favor it. Also, more authoritarian unaffiliated comrades seem to favor nuclear power. I am unaware of any organized left group that favors nuclear power. I could be wrong on this.[QUOTE=pranabjyoti;2129803]Another blatant lie from a trot. I want to know how do you know that?A reading quiz for pranabjyoti:

(1) (a) What does "seem to" mean? (b) How does it differ from "do"?

(2) (a) What does "broadly speaking" mean? (b) How does it differ from "totally"?

RED DAVE

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Another blatant lie from a trot. I want to know how do you know that?

Do you support nuclear power?

[Jose Gracchus]

Am I to "trust" the bourgeoisie to ensure they do not exceed 550 ppm CO2? How am I to "trust" them to do this, while pressuring them to not use a particular on-demand, non-fossil fuel energy sources? Clearly I would have to show that renewables can meet not only theoretical working-class material needs writ large, but also that the bourgeoisie will find them profitable enough to turn to, in between their fossil discipline and anti-nuclear pressure.

Or, I can cheerlead Gazprom increasing it's market share in Central Europe, as if that is a victory for workers.

[black magick hustla]

i dont think its the job of communists to choose an industry over the other. i dont get the obsession with nuclear power, probably oil fueled stuff have murdered more people than even nukes. we want to dismantle capitalism, not a particular technology.

[Kamos]

The hell is up with the anti-nuke sentiment? Unlike nuclear energy, fossilic energy will kill us due to global warming. So either design us a clean, renewable source of energy that isn't too inefficient to be used (like, y'know, everything else today) or piss off. Nobody has a problem with their energy coming cheaply and cleanly 99% of the time through nuclear reactors, but when the 1% (actually, probably less) happens and a freak accident takes place everyone is in uproar despite the fact that nuclear reactors have caused less damage than coal power plants so far. Neither is ideal, but we'll need either a breakthrough or achieving a late (possibly final) stage of socialism/communism to be able to depend on anything else.

[Demogorgon]

The hell is up with the anti-nuke sentiment? Unlike nuclear energy, fossilic energy will kill us due to global warming. So either design us a clean, renewable source of energy that isn't too inefficient to be used (like, y'know, everything else today) or piss off. Nobody has a problem with their energy coming cheaply and cleanly 99% of the time through nuclear reactors, but when the 1% (actually, probably less) happens and a freak accident takes place everyone is in uproar despite the fact that nuclear reactors have caused less damage than coal power plants so far. Neither is ideal, but we'll need either a breakthrough or achieving a late (possibly final) stage of socialism/communism to be able to depend on anything else.
18% of the world's electricity is already generated through renewables. Countries like Norway already generate the vast majority of their energy through renewables. In Scotland the Government is committed to 100% of energy from renewables by 2020. It won't hit the deadline, Scottish Governments never hit deadlines, but it will come close. Over time, tidal power in Scotland is projected to be able to meet 25% of Europe's total energy needs and that is just one small (albeit conveniently located for tidal power) country.

That is not "too inefficient to be used".

[Demogorgon]

As an addendum on "science worship", it is a real problem on this board because it inevitably comes from people who don't understand science. Simply declaring yourself to be devoted to something rational doesn't make it so. Ayn Rand cultists for instance proclaim to be devoted to "reason", which sounds great until you realise what they worship has very little to do with actual reason.

The same happens with a lot of people who proclaim to follow science, it becomes just a word used to justify the implausible rather than an actual commitment to scientific study.

[Rowan Duffy]

The same happens with a lot of people who proclaim to follow science, it becomes just a word used to justify the implausible rather than an actual commitment to scientific study.

The charge of "Science worship" is also an excuse by which the intellectually lazy get out of supporting their arguments with evidence by claiming a religious disposition of their opponents.

Empirical evidence is our best tool for discovering correct action. I have a very strong distrust of anyone interested in jettisoning it.

[graymouser]

The hell is up with the anti-nuke sentiment? Unlike nuclear energy, fossilic energy will kill us due to global warming. So either design us a clean, renewable source of energy that isn't too inefficient to be used (like, y'know, everything else today) or piss off. Nobody has a problem with their energy coming cheaply and cleanly 99% of the time through nuclear reactors, but when the 1% (actually, probably less) happens and a freak accident takes place everyone is in uproar despite the fact that nuclear reactors have caused less damage than coal power plants so far. Neither is ideal, but we'll need either a breakthrough or achieving a late (possibly final) stage of socialism/communism to be able to depend on anything else.
Current world energy usage is between 12 and 15 terawatts per year. We could generate at least 40 terawatts per year from wind alone if we built the infrastructure to do so. This is not including any use of photovoltaics for solar, which have a maximum capacity of 580 terawatts. (These figures are only including accessible locations and are therefore much smaller than they might otherwise be.)

Nuclear is simply the wrong way to go. It ranges up to 25 times more costly than wind power in the process of setting it up, and sequestration and disposal of spent fuel and heavy water remain major problems. The infrastructure is painfully difficult to build, and in capitalist societies it's basically been one of those projects, like commercial air travel, that is actually a gift from governments to corporations, moving tax money over to private interests who then make a profit from an industry that would never be profitable on its own. It's somewhat desirable for oil-exporting countries to not need to burn oil, or to import it, but that's not an issue in socialism, is it now?

The idea that we'd need to hang on to nuclear until some late phase is problematic on two levels. One, it mistakes the renewables question. It's simply more profitable for the system to keep going with coal than to re-create the entire energy infrastructure, so it doesn't get done. A transition to socialism at this point will probably mean rebuilding the entire energy and transportation systems as a whole. Two, it gives a lot of credit to the nuclear plants built under capitalism to say that we wouldn't decommission them as soon as it's feasible - credit that I don't think is due. Why on earth would you trust a nuclear plant built for profit? Hell, the recent nuclear plants GE is putting out, like the one at Fukushima Daiichi, were basically lauded for being low-cost high-output reactors.

[Rowan Duffy]

Hell, the recent nuclear plants GE is putting out, like the one at Fukushima Daiichi, were basically lauded for being low-cost high-output reactors.

Recent? 1973 is recent?

[Demogorgon]

The charge of "Science worship" is also an excuse by which the intellectually lazy get out of supporting their arguments with evidence by claiming a religious disposition of their opponents.

Empirical evidence is our best tool for discovering correct action. I have a very strong distrust of anyone interested in jettisoning it.
I strongly agree that empirical evidence is the best tool for discovering the correct action. Those who I believe engage in "science worship" are those whom I believe do not rely on empirical evidence but rather upon a mistaken notion of what science is. Once again what is being attacked is not science but those who place faith in a mistaken notion of what science is.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Chernonbyl shows that the bureaucracy of the USSR had become so corrupt they ignored warnings from the KGB that Chernobyl had critical flaws and the KGB so was inept they ordered a power loss test on Chernobyl knowning about Ignalina reactor that ran away when scrammed.

Wow.

I guess you have no problem with nuclear weapons either then. According to your logic, the issue isn't ever with the object itself, but that it can be operated badly.

Absolutely absurd. You are attempting to argue against a position of your own creation, one that defies all common sense intrepreation of what your opponent actually means.

When people say they "oppose" nuclear power, or absolutely bloody anything for that matter, they don't mean they would still oppose it even if it were operated so that it had only benefits, but that they, in addition to noting the problems innate with such a thing, they do not beleive it is fesible to operate nuclear power without having risks of drawbacks. It can surely only be disingeious to suggest people opposed to nuclear power would do so without factoring the possiblity of it being operated well or badly since that is what you would assume for any other argument made.

Consider;

"I oppose capitalism."

"No! The problem with capitalism is that its been operated badly! It if were operated so that everything worked fine, there would be no problems."


"uhh thats kinda beside the point since its implicit in what i'm saying that it can't be...."

"Still, the problem then is bad operation! Not capitalism!"

"uhh"

Whatever i'm in a wierd mood today where I can't explain really simple stuff so i'm having to write it out like this but your clearly making an error.

[Rowan Duffy]

I strongly agree that empirical evidence is the best tool for discovering the correct action. Those who I believe engage in "science worship" are those whom I believe do not rely on empirical evidence but rather upon a mistaken notion of what science is. Once again what is being attacked is not science but those who place faith in a mistaken notion of what science is.

However you're implying that people who are interested in evaluating nuclear power as an option are guilty of "science worship".

I'm an alternative energy enthusiast and I've also some knowledge of science. I've yet to see very convincing evidence that nuclear is an unambiguously worse option.

The two alternative sources of energy promoted - wind and solar - are simply not viable as a main energy source without ridiculous SciFi-like prior assumptions about infrastructure.

The very lazy arguments about wind cost which the proponents on this board and elsewhere have used, which fail to take into account storage and variability encourage distrust.

Tidal and geothermal are more realistic sources in the mid to long term. Tidal, however, requires enormous barrages which will lead to CO2 release, are very expensive, or it requires new technologies (turbines etc.) which are still in development. Geothermal (outside of specific peculiar geological features) is also still in the early stages of development. In addition it has the potential for seismic disruption, explosion, poison gas release and radio-isotopic release.

If we look at nuclear as compares carbon sources, I'm in favour of nuclear just based on deaths per TWh without taking into account CO2.

This means that proponents of shutting down nuclear power plants are actually pushing for increasing use of coal etc. If they really wanted to push towards more sustainable use they'd be pushing alternative energy to displace these in the here and now - not pushing the removal of nuclear. Once we stop burning coal and lignite because alternative fuels have displaced them, then we'll be in a serious position to evaluate whether and which alternative fuels should displace nuclear.

[Lord Testicles]

Wow.

I guess you have no problem with nuclear weapons either then. According to your logic, the issue isn't ever with the object itself, but that it can be operated badly.

If you don't think that nuclear weapons have a peaceful application then you haven't heard of project Orion. ;)

[Demogorgon]

However you're implying that people who are interested in evaluating nuclear power as an option are guilty of "science worship".
No I'm not, I am referring to a particular clique on RevLeft who are providing most of our pronuclear friends here. Stick around for a while and you will see what I mean about worshiping a false perception of science. Check the thread on Germany decommissioning its plants for a good example, where there is a rather...unique...suggestion regarding outer space. Also notice that I explicitly state that I don't think that all advocates of nuclear energy should be dismissed as people with such silly ideas.


I'm an alternative energy enthusiast and I've also some knowledge of science. I've yet to see very convincing evidence that nuclear is an unambiguously worse option.

The two alternative sources of energy promoted - wind and solar - are simply not viable as a main energy source without ridiculous SciFi-like prior assumptions about infrastructure.

The very lazy arguments about wind cost which the proponents on this board and elsewhere have used, which fail to take into account storage and variability encourage distrust.

Tidal and geothermal are more realistic sources in the mid to long term. Tidal, however, requires enormous barrages which will lead to CO2 release, are very expensive, or it requires new technologies (turbines etc.) which are still in development. Geothermal (outside of specific peculiar geological features) is also still in the early stages of development. In addition it has the potential for seismic disruption, explosion, poison gas release and radio-isotopic release.

I know some of the technology for tidal power is not there yet, but as you say it is in development. Nobody thinks that we could simply shut down all nuclear plants today, but rather that we should be getting started on the process of replacing them (and fossil fuels plants of course) with renewable energy.

I think we also need to put this into a political and economic context as well. Part of the reason that renewable energy, including some of the more ambitious proposals are becoming viable is simply because Governments are willing to fund them. Nuclear power has a serious problem that will kill it off more surely than concerns about safety: its cost. Private companies will not make the investment alone, as it is too large and perhaps not even profitable and the costs are getting to the scale that Governments are getting reluctant to put up the money. They are investing into renewable energy because it is cheaper, nothing more than that. Even what you term the sci-fi infrastructure assumptions of solar power may eventually become possible, simply because it may prove a cheaper option than nuclear energy. Governments are motivated by saving money, but there is a real opportunity here.


If we look at nuclear as compares carbon sources, I'm in favour of nuclear just based on deaths per TWh without taking into account CO2.

This means that proponents of shutting down nuclear power plants are actually pushing for increasing use of coal etc. If they really wanted to push towards more sustainable use they'd be pushing alternative energy to displace these in the hear and now - not pushing the removal of nuclear. Once we stop burning coal and lignite because alternative fuels have displaced them, then we'll be in a serious position to evaluate whether and which alternative fuels should displace nuclear.
I agree that we should push for the replacement of fossil fuel plants with renewables (though out science worshiping friends would have us replace those with nuclear power too), but that is not the particular topic of this thread. I think actually in the real world nuclear power will probably be replaced first because of cost, but fossil fuel plants are perhaps even more urgent.

[pranabjyoti]

Do you support nuclear power?
NO. I myself have repeatedly said that alternatives sources have much more potential than nuclear and they are far cheaper. Many M-L and Maoists share my view. In short, you can not categorize support to nuclear power based sectarian tendency as COMRADE(!) RED DAVE had done.

[Psy]

Wow.

I guess you have no problem with nuclear weapons either then. According to your logic, the issue isn't ever with the object itself, but that it can be operated badly.

You do know the USSR did experiment in the use of very low yield nuclear explosives for blasting through rock in construction. Of course they ran into issues of radioactivity even with low yield explosives but they could be useful in mining other planets that are already dead thus radioactivity won't matter.



Absolutely absurd. You are attempting to argue against a position of your own creation, one that defies all common sense intrepreation of what your opponent actually means.


When people say they "oppose" nuclear power, or absolutely bloody anything for that matter, they don't mean they would still oppose it even if it were operated so that it had only benefits, but that they, in addition to noting the problems innate with such a thing, they do not beleive it is fesible to operate nuclear power without having risks of drawbacks. It can surely only be disingeious to suggest people opposed to nuclear power would do so without factoring the possiblity of it being operated well or badly since that is what you would assume for any other argument made.


Consider;

"I oppose capitalism."

"No! The problem with capitalism is that its been operated badly! It if were operated so that everything worked fine, there would be no problems."


"uhh thats kinda beside the point since its implicit in what i'm saying that it can't be...."

"Still, the problem then is bad operation! Not capitalism!"

"uhh"

Whatever i'm in a wierd mood today where I can't explain really simple stuff so i'm having to write it out like this but your clearly making an error.

Yet would a Chernobyl have happen if the USSR was a true workers state? If nuclear engineers were free to voice their concerns back in the 1960's and the incident at the Ignalina reactor was public knowledge (as a true workers state could not keep that secret).

My position is that the problem with nuclear power is nuclear engineers are not free to fix the safety issues with nuclear reactors.

[pranabjyoti]

You do know the USSR did experiment in the use of very low yield nuclear explosives for blasting through rock in construction. Of course they ran into issues of radioactivity even with low yield explosives but they could be useful in mining other planets that are already dead thus radioactivity won't matter.



Yet would a Chernobyl have happen if the USSR was a true workers state? If nuclear engineers were free to voice their concerns back in the 1960's and the incident at the Ignalina reactor was public knowledge (as a true workers state could not keep that secret).

My position is that the problem with nuclear power is nuclear engineers are not free to fix the safety issues with nuclear reactors.
I think in a workers state at present, there is no need of any kind of nuclear power plants, other than military purpose.

[Psy]

I think in a workers state at present, there is no need of any kind of nuclear power plants, other than military purpose.
What about nuclear research? What about the production of medical isotopes? What about the generation of electricity?

Writing off nuclear power in a workers state is basically saying we have no faith in nuclear engineers.

[piet11111]

We shouldn't do away with nuclear weapons just yet either after all its what kept North Korea safe from american aggression so far.

In my opinion its the only real alternative to a ridiculously large standing army and it keeps away the much stronger foreign powers.

And yes i realize that nuclear weapons would target the working class more then normal weapons but there simply is no better deterrence also even if a socialist nation would be under attack they could still decide to not use those weapons in retaliation.
Simply having them would be enough to deter most enemy's.

[Aurora]

Im vacillating on the issue at the moment but what interests me more is the actual political considerations rather than the technological side.

I mean im not seeing what clearly defines being 'pro-nuclear' vs 'anti-nuclear'.

Surely those who are 'anti-nuclear' aren't in favour of shutting down all nuclear power plants immediately without replacing them with alternative energy sources like wind or solar first.
And those who are 'pro-nuclear' must recognise that nuclear energy isn't a sustainable source of power and isn't green by any means. So it must be dismantled and replaced with alternative energy.

:confused:

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

You do know the USSR did experiment in the use of very low yield nuclear explosives for blasting through rock in construction. Of course they ran into issues of radioactivity even with low yield explosives but they could be useful in mining other planets that are already dead thus radioactivity won't matter.



Yet would a Chernobyl have happen if the USSR was a true workers state? If nuclear engineers were free to voice their concerns back in the 1960's and the incident at the Ignalina reactor was public knowledge (as a true workers state could not keep that secret).

My position is that the problem with nuclear power is nuclear engineers are not free to fix the safety issues with nuclear reactors.

Yes the problem being that you cannot guarentee that, even if you set up a system where nuclear engineers are in control, they will permamently be in control. It seems likely, given the costs of replacing the plants, that a situation could arise where nuclear engineers are removed from control but nuclear power plants remain operational. Since we cannot be certain of this, nor can we be certain that we have correctly assessed this chance, it seems absurd to risk constructing things that could potentially ruin vast tracks of this earth on the basis of an assumption that nuclear power will always be "done right" while it exists.

[Jose Gracchus]

Current world energy usage is between 12 and 15 terawatts per year. We could generate at least 40 terawatts per year from wind alone if we built the infrastructure to do so. This is not including any use of photovoltaics for solar, which have a maximum capacity of 580 terawatts. (These figures are only including accessible locations and are therefore much smaller than they might otherwise be.)

Could you provide me with citations for this information, and the assumptions which underlie it? Because I've heard pie-in-the-sky wind and solar assumptions before, and it basically suggests carpeting deserts with photovoltaic cells and building a veritable forest of wind turbines through the entire Great Plains corridor and other extreme expectations that are unlikely to be met. Furthermore, you did state a 73 reactor was "new", and you've always damned nuclear as requiring high fossil expenditures to set up (as if the wheel-bound maintenance and installation for wind farms spread across millions of square miles would be low).

[Rusty Shackleford]

im torn on the issue. thats about as much as i can say.


i can say that i would prefer that Stalker/Fallout-esque lands stay in the realm of fantasy though.

[Psy]

Yes the problem being that you cannot guarentee that, even if you set up a system where nuclear engineers are in control, they will permamently be in control. It seems likely, given the costs of replacing the plants, that a situation could arise where nuclear engineers are removed from control but nuclear power plants remain operational. Since we cannot be certain of this, nor can we be certain that we have correctly assessed this chance, it seems absurd to risk constructing things that could potentially ruin vast tracks of this earth on the basis of an assumption that nuclear power will always be "done right" while it exists.

Why would a workers state remove them from control? It also states humanity shouldn't pursue technology that can blow humanity up because we can't trust ourselves, for example what happens when humanity actually gains the power to form stars does that mean we should not use that technology to form stars to engineer man made solar systems?

[Rowan Duffy]

And those who are 'pro-nuclear' must recognise that nuclear energy isn't a sustainable source of power and isn't green by any means. So it must be dismantled and replaced with alternative energy.

Strictly speaking our Sun has a limited lifetime and so everything on this planet is limited.

I did a back-of-the-napkin and found that the volume of randomly occurring surface rock that would fill the grand canyon, has, based on the average abundance of thorium, enough energy to power the entire current earth population for 1000 years at the current total* energy use of Germany per capita.

It's not sustainable in the sense of forever, but it's sustainable in the sense of "wow, if we can't find better ways of finding energy in a few thousand years, we're probably screwed anyhow".

* Including all forms of energy use, not just electricity.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Why would a workers state remove them from control? It also states humanity shouldn't pursue technology that can blow humanity up because we can't trust ourselves, for example what happens when humanity actually gains the power to form stars does that mean we should not use that technology to form stars to engineer man made solar systems?

I don't know exactly. Possible reasons that come to mind would be that the workers state, for some reason degenerates, or comes up against some social dynamic unforseen by our theorising or any number of things.

Well, I assume by the time we have the power to "form stars" we will probably have high enough technology in other areas to make sure they are of little risk. If your asking me whether we should try and form stars when they present as great a threat to human life, and as little benefit, with somewhat more expensive altenratives that do more or less the same thing as this star creation avaiable, then i'd guess we shouldn't make them though. I understand everything is a "risk" to some degree, and we have to weigh that up with the rewards, but it seems insane to suggest that nuclear power is a good option when there are alternatives avaiable that pose nothing near the risk of potential damage nuclear power does.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm always shocked by Leftists or "progressives" who are pro-nuclear energy. From power plants to weapons, they are unacceptable.

yeah, well I'm always shocked by leftists or ''progressives'' who have an irrational, knee jerk mysticist attitude about issues which they aren't interested to read about before voicing uninformed (and frankly bullshit) opinions.

FYI, nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons are entirely different things.


We shouldn't do away with nuclear weapons just yet either after all its what kept North Korea safe from american aggression so far.
I'm not convinced we should do away with nuclear weapons EVER. There is a convincing argument that they'd be effective at deflecting falling astronomical bodies as well as other peaceful applications in space exploration (mining for example).



i can say that i would prefer that Stalker/Fallout-esque lands stay in the realm of fantasy though.
In much the same way that guns dont kill people, Nukes dont create fallout-esque landscapes, political idealogues do.

If it werent nukes it'd be something else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_weapons).

[jake williams]

I'm not convinced we should do away with nuclear weapons EVER. There is a convincing argument that they'd be effective at deflecting falling astronomical bodies as well as other peaceful applications in space exploration (mining for example).
This kind of raises questions about what constitutes a "weapon". Reasons like this are exactly why we shouldn't reject any technologies in principal, because the actual devices would be similar or even almost identical, but they wouldn't represent the "weaponized" use of nuclear power.

[Psy]

I don't know exactly. Possible reasons that come to mind would be that the workers state, for some reason degenerates, or comes up against some social dynamic unforseen by our theorising or any number of things.

Well, I assume by the time we have the power to "form stars" we will probably have high enough technology in other areas to make sure they are of little risk. If your asking me whether we should try and form stars when they present as great a threat to human life, and as little benefit, with somewhat more expensive altenratives that do more or less the same thing as this star creation avaiable, then i'd guess we shouldn't make them though. I understand everything is a "risk" to some degree, and we have to weigh that up with the rewards, but it seems insane to suggest that nuclear power is a good option when there are alternatives avaiable that pose nothing near the risk of potential damage nuclear power does.
The alternatives can't produce the isotopes used in nuclear medicine, nor can they be used for further research in nuclear fission, thus getting rid of nuclear reactors would set back science greatly.

[graymouser]

Could you provide me with citations for this information, and the assumptions which underlie it? Because I've heard pie-in-the-sky wind and solar assumptions before, and it basically suggests carpeting deserts with photovoltaic cells and building a veritable forest of wind turbines through the entire Great Plains corridor and other extreme expectations that are unlikely to be met. Furthermore, you did state a 73 reactor was "new", and you've always damned nuclear as requiring high fossil expenditures to set up (as if the wheel-bound maintenance and installation for wind farms spread across millions of square miles would be low).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

The discussion in this article actually discounts the majority of hard-to-utilize locations for photovoltaic and wind generation, and specifies that the footprint of its planned wind energy usage is less than the size of Manhattan.

As for the claims about a 1973 reactor, it was a conflicting report I read shortly after the Fukushima disaster. My bad. Still - it was a cost-cutting reactor design, so why would you trust capitalism's reactors for a second longer than you had to?

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The alternatives can't produce the isotopes used in nuclear medicine, nor can they be used for further research in nuclear fission, thus getting rid of nuclear reactors would set back science greatly.

Are you saying that without the current amount of nuclear reactors we can't make isotopes or stuff to research nuclear fission? Can you confirm that that we need enough nuclear reactors to generate twenty percent of our power in order to get a sufficient amount of isotopes or to research nuclear fission? If not, then its not a problem.

[Psy]

Are you saying that without the current amount of nuclear reactors we can't make isotopes or stuff to research nuclear fission? Can you confirm that that we need enough nuclear reactors to generate twenty percent of our power in order to get a sufficient amount of isotopes or to research nuclear fission? If not, then its not a problem.
Not really but more reactors would have to be built as capitalism hasn't built enough different kind of reactors for research.

[RED DAVE]

Why would a workers state remove them from control?You keep on ducking the issue here. It isn't a matter of what a workers state would do? It is a matter that what you are advocating is more nukes built by the bourgeois state. You are trusting the bourgeoisie to run nukes, with consequences we know: more disasters are inevitable.


It also states humanity shouldn't pursue technology that can blow humanity up because we can't trust ourselvesThe point is not whether or not we can trust humanity, but whether or not we ca trust the bourgeoisie. Evidentally, you trust them to run nukes.


for example what happens when humanity actually gains the power to form stars does that mean we should not use that technology to form stars to engineer man made solar systems?Irrelevant sci fi fantasy. This is really dumb. Would you trust the bourgeoisie to form stars?

RED DAVE

[pranabjyoti]

What about nuclear research? What about the production of medical isotopes? What about the generation of electricity?

Writing off nuclear power in a workers state is basically saying we have no faith in nuclear engineers.
I have said about nuclear power i.e. electricity generation. The other uses you have mentioned are basically research works and therefore don't need a full fledged industry on public money wastage.
Nuclear power is the most dirty, wasteful and dangerous means of power production at present.

[Psy]

You keep on ducking the issue here. It isn't a matter of what a workers state would do? It is a matter that what you are advocating is more nukes built by the bourgeois state. You are trusting the bourgeoisie to run nukes, with consequences we know: more disasters are inevitable.

I support more research reactors being built by the bourgeoisie states as bourgeoisie states have focused far too greatly on research nuclear explosions (nuclear technology relevant to building nuclear weapons) and not much on doing more advanced research into nuclear reactions in reactors.

Also if nuclear technicians became more militant they could impose their will on the bourgeoisie, for example the railway workers of JNR had slow downs to fight for better safety so why can't nuclear technicians form a union and lower nuclear reactors output against the will of the capitalist owners till they recognize the demands of the nuclear workers unions to improve safety of reactors?

What is the owner going to do send in scabs, we are talking about a nuclear reactor that is going to be very hard for the owners, and it would be hard for the media to spin scabs running a nuclear reactor as being safe.



The point is not whether or not we can trust humanity, but whether or not we can trust the bourgeoisie. Evidentally, you trust them to run nukes.

But they are not the ones directly controlling rectors, workers are. The solution is to get the workers to start taking a active role in pressure their bosses to improve safety.




Irrelevant sci fi fantasy. This is really dumb. Would you trust the bourgeoisie to form stars?

RED DAVE
What you think humanity is too stupid to ever figure out the nuclear physics behind the formation starts and reproduce it?

As for trusting the bourgeoisie to form stars, again it would not be the bourgeoisie directly in control of it, the more militant we can get technicians and engineers the less control the bourgeoisie will have over the process.

[piet11111]

Are you saying that without the current amount of nuclear reactors we can't make isotopes or stuff to research nuclear fission? Can you confirm that that we need enough nuclear reactors to generate twenty percent of our power in order to get a sufficient amount of isotopes or to research nuclear fission? If not, then its not a problem.


When the nuclear reactor in petten used to produce medical isotopes was shut down for maintenance in the netherlands there was a global shortage that lasted for several weeks.
Petten together with a reactor in ontario accounts for a large share of global production of medical isotopes.

[Dr Mindbender]

You keep on ducking the issue here. It isn't a matter of what a workers state would do? It is a matter that what you are advocating is more nukes built by the bourgeois state. You are trusting the bourgeoisie to run nukes, with consequences we know: more disasters are inevitable.


You keep saying 'nukes' as though nuclear power and nuclear weapons are the same thing. They aren't. Moreover the possession of nuclear power does not necessarily mean the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as shown in Iran.

Like i said before, if you dont want to trust the bourgeoisie with 'nukes' [sic] why stop there? Why trust them with any technology? Why trust them with tanks or chemical weapons?

Im not seeing much complaining about those.

Besides which the whole argument is redundant. You make out that nuclear weapons are somehow effective for class warfare which is ridiculous. It makes no sense for the bourgeoisie to destroy itself by atomising the labouring class.

[syndicat]

You keep saying 'nukes' as though nuclear power and nuclear weapons are the same thing. They aren't. Moreover the possession of nuclear power does not necessarily mean the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as shown in Iran.



but they have been closely related historically. nuclear power is highly uneconomic even in market terms and got started only due to huge subsidies from the state. the state had an interest in doing this because they wanted to promote the idea that nuclear fission had "peaceful uses", thus making people less queasy about nuclear weapons production. nuclear power was supposed to be the "peace dividend" from nuclear weapons.

nuclear power is uneconomic for a variety of reasons. for one thing, the initial startup or development costs for the industry had to be subsidized by the state. second, because of the potentially catastrophic consequences of a containment breach or meltdown, there were large risks to surrounding populations. No private insurance firm would ever be willing to insure a nuclear power plant. so the state had to exempt nuclear plants from this kind of insurance. this is another form of subsidy that doesn't go onto the balance sheet of the nuclear plant. to the extent the plant is "hardened" to maximize security of the surrounding population, it increases the cost of the plant.

uranium is also very dangerous to mine and refine. through the '40s and '50s a large majority of the urbanium in US for bombs and nuclear power came from mines in New Mexico and Colorado, which employed many American Indians, due to lack of other job prospects there. About half of the Indian miners employed in these mines eventually died painful deaths from cancer. so these are human costs that don't show up on the balance sheets of the capitalist firms in the nuclear power industry.

altho wind farms and photovoltaic cells have great potential as far as generating a high percentage of the required electricity, a basic problem is that these sources are intermittant. sun is not available at nite and is less on cloudy days, wind is also various in the times when it blows.

but under current technology, an electrical grid needs to maintain a consant power capacity, because it faces constant demand. without the constant power on line, the grid becomes unstable and can crash.

this means that intermittent electrical power sources would need a different kind of grid scheme. for example, one way to maintain constant availability for solar and wind power is to use paired reservoirs. during the day the water is pumped to the upper reservoir using the solar electricity. at nite the water runs downhill thru gneerators. this works to an efficiency of about 60 to 70 percent.

i suppose that battery systems could be integrated in some way with the grid to help keep a constant availability. but batteries also have their own type of enviromental and health burden.

electricity generation is probably the biggest part of the global warming problem, but it's not the only part. about 25 to 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the US are from the transportation system, which is heavily dependent on fossil fuel burning. to some extent electric transportation can replace this but then you have a greater load on power generation.

[Jose Gracchus]

The intermittancy and efficient transmission problems are near the top of the major technological tasks the working class would have to tackle on Day 2.

[RED DAVE]

You keep on ducking the issue here. It isn't a matter of what a workers state would do? It is a matter that what you are advocating is more nukes built by the bourgeois state. You are trusting the bourgeoisie to run nukes, with consequences we know: more disasters are inevitable.
I support more research reactors being built by the bourgeoisie states as bourgeoisie states have focused far too greatly on research nuclear explosions (nuclear technology relevant to building nuclear weapons) and not much on doing more advanced research into nuclear reactions in reactors.You are completely avoiding the issue of the danger of nuclear reactors for the generation of power.


I Also if nuclear technicians became more militant they could impose their will on the bourgeoisieYou’ve got to be kidding.


I for example the railway workers of JNR had slow downs to fight for better safety so why can't nuclear technicians form a union and lower nuclear reactors output against the will of the capitalist owners till they recognize the demands of the nuclear workers unions to improve safety of reactors?Are you being stupid here or have you just run out of arguments? The degree of control over nukes that you’re talking about would only be possible under socialism when the workers own the means of production, including nukes.


I What is the owner going to do send in scabs, we are talking about a nuclear reactor that is going to be very hard for the owners, and it would be hard for the media to spin scabs running a nuclear reactor as being safe.You obviously have no concept of what a labor conflict is like and what the bourgeoisie can and can’t do. 30 years ago, the US brougeoisie fired its entire complement of 13,000 air traffic controllers, broke the union and kept the US air traffic system going with managers until it rebuilt it entirely with new hires.


The point is not whether or not we can trust humanity, but whether or not we can trust the bourgeoisie. Evidentally, you trust them to run nukes.
But they are not the ones directly controlling rectors, workers are. The solution is to get the workers to start taking a active role in pressure their bosses to improve safety.You sound like every liberal who ever talked about a labor problem.



Irrelevant sci fi fantasy. This is really dumb. Would you trust the bourgeoisie to form stars?


What you think humanity is too stupid to ever figure out the nuclear physics behind the formation starts and reproduce it?One more time, are you being stupid or just run out of arguments. We are talking about the bourgeoisie, not humanity.


As for trusting the bourgeoisie to form stars, again it would not be the bourgeoisie directly in control of it, the more militant we can get technicians and engineers the less control the bourgeoisie will have over the process.Now you’re just being stupid.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

You keep on ducking the issue here. It isn't a matter of what a workers state would do? It is a matter that what you are advocating is more nukes built by the bourgeois state. You are trusting the bourgeoisie to run nukes, with consequences we know: more disasters are inevitable.
You keep saying 'nukes' as though nuclear power and nuclear weapons are the same thing.Same industry, same technology, same mentality


They aren't. Moreover the possession of nuclear power does not necessarily mean the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as shown in Iran.Your trust in the bourgeoisie of the US and Iran is truly touching.


Like i said before, if you dont want to trust the bourgeoisie with 'nukes' [sic] why stop there? Why trust them with any technology? Why trust them with tanks or chemical weapons?As leftists, we don't trust them. That's why we call for universal disarmament. And, by the way, one of the key issues of the Vietnam War was the use of the very nonclear weapon napalm.


Im not seeing much complaining about those.That's because you seem to be ignorant of history. The Left has campaigned against the use of specific weapons going back to WWI and protests against the use of poison gas.


Besides which the whole argument is redundant. You make out that nuclear weapons are somehow effective for class warfare which is ridiculous. It makes no sense for the bourgeoisie to destroy itself by atomising the labouring class.Tell that to the workers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

RED DAVE

[Psy]

You are completely avoiding the issue of the danger of nuclear reactors for the generation of power.

You are assuming we can only generate electricity with the old nuclear technology of the 1970's.



You’ve got to be kidding.

Are you being stupid here or have you just run out of arguments? The degree of control over nukes that you’re talking about would only be possible under socialism when the workers own the means of production, including nukes.

Why? If there is solidarity amount all workers in the nuclear industry and they are all slowing down in protest of safety then either the bourgeoisie will improve safety or worker will make them safer through running nuclear power plants at a much lower output (as long as the union dominates the production process).



You obviously have no concept of what a labor conflict is like and what the bourgeoisie can and can’t do. 30 years ago, the US brougeoisie fired its entire complement of 13,000 air traffic controllers, broke the union and kept the US air traffic system going with managers until it rebuilt it entirely with new hires.

We are talking about nuclear reactors, mangers in nuclear reactors are not legally qualified to run reactors and there is not really enough of a surplus of nuclear technicians to scab all nuclear power workers across the entire US.

Thus as long as nuclear workers remain in solidarity with each other they would be in a very good position.



You sound like every liberal who ever talked about a labor problem.

Only workers can improve safety.



One more time, are you being stupid or just run out of arguments. We are talking about the bourgeoisie, not humanity.

Now you’re just being stupid.

RED DAVE

The bourgeoisie that require the cooperation of the proletariat, if workers collectively refuse to follow orders of their bosses the bourgeoisies loses much of its power.

[pranabjyoti]

You are assuming we can only generate electricity with the old nuclear technology of the 1970's.
What is "new" 21st century atomic technology that can get rid of nuclear waste? At least I don't know any.

[RED DAVE]

From the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission:


Currently, there are no permanent disposal facilities in the United States for high-level nuclear waste; therefore commercial high-level waste (spent fuel) is in temporary storage, mainly at nuclear power plants.http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0216/

From the European Environmental Agency:


The amount of highly radioactive waste from nuclear power production continues to accumulate and a generally acceptable disposal route for this waste has yet to be identified. The related potential health and environmental risks, as well as issues surrounding nuclear proliferation, therefore continue to be a cause for concern.www.eea.europa.eu/...nuclear-waste-production/en13-nuclear-waste-production (http://www.eea.europa.eu/...nuclear-waste-production/en13-nuclear-waste-production)

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

I started this thread not to discuss nuclear power per se, but the politics of it. Now that it's established that nuclear power is extremely dangerous and certainly not to be given to the bourgeoisie to play with, maybe we can get to the politics.


When the current debates on nuclear power first began here, after the beginning of the Fukushima Crisis (which is ongoing), I was shocked to see that there were comrades here who were pro-nuke. The anti-nuke movement of the 1970s-80s was a product of the Left in response to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I am amazed that there has been a reversal of position of some leftists.

I also note that there seems to be a political division with regard to pro-and anti-nuke politics. Broadly speaking, Trotskyists and anarchists seem to oppose nuclear power, while, broadly speaking, Maoists, Stalinists and Technocrats seem to favor it. Also, more authoritarian unaffiliated comrades seem to favor nuclear power. I am unaware of any organized left group that favors nuclear power. I could be wrong on this.

Let's discuss this.RED DAVE

[Psy]

What is "new" 21st century atomic technology that can get rid of nuclear waste? At least I don't know any.
The ability to utilize radioactive fuel more efficiently thus more gets used up in the reactor before coming out as spent fuel.

[RED DAVE]

The ability to utilize radioactive fuel more efficiently thus more gets used up in the reactor before coming out as spent fuel.You are in denial about the dangers of spent fuel, which you are willing to entrust to the bourgeoisie to store safely indefinitely.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2133634&postcount=74

RED DAVE

[Psy]

You are in denial about the dangers of spent fuel, which you are willing to entrust to the bourgeoisie to store safely indefinitely.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2133634&postcount=74

RED DAVE
Reactors that output less waste per MW/h reduces the amount spent fuel. I also don't trust the bourgeoisie to store waste indefinitely as their class won't last for the life span of the nuclear waste. It is pretty safe statement to say workers would overthrow capitalism by the time the first wave of nuclear waste fully reaches its half-life (1,000 years or 2950).

[RED DAVE]

Reactors that output less waste per MW/h reduces the amount spent fuel.All that does is slow down the accumulation of world poison.


I also don't trust the bourgeoisie to store waste indefinitelyOkay. Let's see what conclusion you draw from this.


as their class won't last for the life span of the nuclear waste. It is pretty safe statement to say workers would overthrow capitalism by the time the first wave of nuclear waste fully reaches its half-life (1,000 years or 2950).Wow! What you are saying is that you are willing to let the bourgeoisie control nuclear power (and nuclear waste) until the revolution. When I was young and foolish, probably before your Dad was born, we all expected "the revolution" to happen by about 1980. We're still waiting. In the meantime, at very least, we managed to ban nuclear testing, and no new nukes have been built in the US.

Hopefully, we can do better in the future and get rid of these nuclear accidents getting ready to happen. By the way, the japanese government now estimates that it will be at least the end of this year before they ever stabilize the Fukushima reactors. Meanwhile, they are leaking radioactive water and gaseous emittants.

RED DAVE

[Dr Mindbender]

Same industry, same technology, same mentality
Um no, I don't understand where you make that leap in deduction.

Its like saying the people who manufacture civillian airliners have the same mentality as those manufacture bomber jets. Mentality has nothing to do with it.



Your trust in the bourgeoisie of the US and Iran is truly touching.
What trust? What are you even talking about?



As leftists, we don't trust them. That's why we call for universal disarmament. And, by the way, one of the key issues of the Vietnam War was the use of the very nonclear weapon napalm.

Regardless it is a moot point. As i've said before, I am not for the abolition of nuclear warheads as they have non military applications as shown by things like the Orion project which skinz already mentioned.


That's because you seem to be ignorant of history. The Left has campaigned against the use of specific weapons going back to WWI and protests against the use of poison gas.
I may not be a history expert, but at least i am not ignorant of science which the most vocal members of the anti nuke lobby clearly are. You for example, who thinks that nuclear stations and nuclear bombs share the same technology.Responsible usage of nuclear power does not need to suffer because of politically driven stand offs.

Calling for the total scrapping of nuclear energy is throwing the baby out with the bath water.



Tell that to the workers of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
RED DAVEI'm confident Japanese bourgeoisie also perished in those bombings.

[Psy]

All that does is slow down the accumulation of world poison.

Right and give us more utility for having to deal with the waste.



Okay. Let's see what conclusion you draw from this.

Wow! What you are saying is that you are willing to let the bourgeoisie control nuclear power (and nuclear waste) until the revolution. When I was young and foolish, probably before your Dad was born, we all expected "the revolution" to happen by about 1980. We're still waiting. In the meantime, at very least, we managed to ban nuclear testing, and no new nukes have been built in the US.

Hopefully, we can do better in the future and get rid of these nuclear accidents getting ready to happen. By the way, the japanese government now estimates that it will be at least the end of this year before they ever stabilize the Fukushima reactors. Meanwhile, they are leaking radioactive water and gaseous emittants.

RED DAVE

1,000 year prior to nuclear power was 950 AD when capitalism didn't exist and feudalism was booming. It is very safe to say by 2950 AD capitalism would no longer exist.

As for Fukushima it is just a sign that capitalism is in a stage of decline where the ruling class of Japan can't even defend its own property from other members of the Japanese ruling class.

[S.Artesian]

Originally Posted by RED DAVE http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2128718#post2128718)
When the current debates on nuclear power first began here, after the beginning of the Fukushima Crisis (which is ongoing), I was shocked to see that there were comrades here who were pro-nuke. The anti-nuke movement of the 1970s-80s was a product of the Left in response to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I am amazed that there has been a reversal of position of some leftists.

I also note that there seems to be a political division with regard to pro-and anti-nuke politics. Broadly speaking, Trotskyists and anarchists seem to oppose nuclear power, while, broadly speaking, Maoists, Stalinists and Technocrats seem to favor it. Also, more authoritarian unaffiliated comrades seem to favor nuclear power. I am unaware of any organized left group that favors nuclear power. I could be wrong on this.

Let's discuss this.


I don't think it's quite that simple, Dave. The anti-nuke movement is not directly, or linearly from the left. I think it draws more from the ecology movement than you give credit, and as such it contains, clearly, some very regressive, "pastoral," "naturalist" "small is beautiful" tendencies.

Before our technophiles get too excited-- yes I'm against the bourgeoisie building, operating any nuclear facilities, and for the record I don't support the bourgeoisie building coal-fired plants, coal mines, natural gas fed generating plants, shale gas, oil drilling etc-- because they the bourgeoisie are the class enemy and why would I endorse, support anything that expands their capital? That would be like supporting GM building an auto plant in Tennessee. Fuck em. As Marx said "not one farthing for this government.."

But the politics of this are such that the class issue doesn't get pushed to the front-- thatas Fukushima Daiichi shows, the bourgeoisie will do everything and anything to protect themselves, their property at the expense of the rest of humanity, and the impacts of that behavior when coupled with the risks of long-term contamination, and the current 65,000 tons of nuclear waste that nobody is doing anything with, are exceptional and require a specific opposition.

By specific, I mean an opposition that does not engage in pastoral romanticism, neo-Malthusian panic-mongering, and general themes of anti-technology.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The bourgeoisie that require the cooperation of the proletariat, if workers collectively refuse to follow orders of their bosses the bourgeoisies loses much of its power.

Is your argument seriously "I support nuclear power now because if something goes wrong workers can stop it?"

[Psy]

Is your argument seriously "I support nuclear power now because if something goes wrong workers can stop it?"

My argument is you are looking at the wrong end by looking for reformism (if only the bourgeoisie got rid of nuclear power plants capitalism would be a bit more bearable), instead of looking to workers to supersede the authority of the bourgeoisie. If workers at nuclear powers shut them down (or reduced their output), and demanded capitalists pay for safety upgrades before they started them up (or restored their output) I would support that, but not just the public pressuring capitalists to shut down nuclear power plants.

Why? Well what would happen if we have a general strike and nuclear workers actually seize the nuclear power plants and with solidarity with power workers start producing free power for the revolution? If you have nuclear workers telling revolutionary communities they can hook up to their nuclear plant for free are we going to complain?

[S.Artesian]

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Japan now admits to dramatically underreporting the radiation released from the Daiichi site in the first week. The article also reports how US officials became increasingly frustrated with the Japanese govt's inability or unwillingness to provide accurate and timely information about the conditions at the site and attempted to make their own estimates based on data collected from US aircraft aboard the carriers of the fleet off the coast.

Japan now reports that the containment vessel in the #2 reactor leaked, with several holes in the vessel allowing radiation to escape. The estimate is that 770,000 terabecquerels were released in the first week of the incident, vs. the previous estimate made April 12, of 370,000 in the first month.

Be governed accordingly.