Nuclear energy- arguments for and against....
May 25 2005 10:23
I’m currently neutral on this, and I’d be interested in seeing the arguments from the different strands of anarchists on this board.
1/ Current energy demands cannot be met using renewables alone, let along the projected energy needs for the next decade or two
2/ The oil spike will happen during my lifetime- when demand continues to rise but supply stays constant.
3/ Capitalism is not going to end any time soon.
4/ I’d rather people didn’t all die due to lack of energy (food security, transport, heating, lighting etc).
It seems like nuclear power needs to be kept until we can destroy capital and institute a more efficient production regime.
Go.
May 25 2005 10:59
#2
There isn't enough uranium. Merely meeting power station requirements will ause uranium supply to peak in 6 years, if we include the enrgy needed to power cars that will happen in 4 years.
Not sure if that's world wide. My prediction for future energy scenario is that the richer States will gather the remaining sources to themselves and the rich within those countries will control and ration the supply.
So, rather than acting as though we are the arbiters of what a State should do, and 'calling' for nuclear, renewables, or whatever, like Trots or Greens would do, we should think about how best to defend our communities during the upcoming period of economic and social change.
Whatever form the transition takes -- whether it's to a low-energy usage, nuclear powered or 'sustainable' world, we can be sure that it won't be managed in the interests of the working class. The current elites will almost certainly maintain their status and level of consumption, while the costs -- and the blame -- will be dumped on the rest of us.
May 25 2005 11:00
#3
Lazlo_Woodbine wrote:
So, rather than acting as though we are the arbiters of what a State should do, and 'calling' for nuclear, renewables, or whatever, like Trots or Greens would do, we should think about how best to defend our communities during the upcoming period of economic and social change.
Exactly
May 25 2005 11:09
#4
pingtaio how the fuck can you be neutral on nuclear power?
renewable energy sources would well be enough if it wasn't for capitalism and nuclear power causes far more problems than it would solve. The reason nuclear power is being touted is cause it works on a centralised grid and so you can sell it to people as opposed to sonar panelling, better insulation, small scale wind etc etc which require far less outlay and once inplace you can't charge people for using the sun or wind.
May 25 2005 11:10
#5
Cheers Laz. I wasn't 'calling' for anything, in case I gave the wrong impression- just stating my current non-opposition to nuclear energy.
do you have any reliable links for that uranium supply issue? That is a much shorter timescale that I had been lead to believe.
May 25 2005 11:13
#6
revol68 wrote:
renewable energy sources would well be enough if it wasn't for capitalism and nuclear power causes far more problems than it would solve. The reason nuclear power is being touted is cause it works on a centralised grid and so you can sell it to people...
Centralised electricity general isn't bad in itself... nuclear fusion would be great, but centralised, and solar cells need centralised production.
But there is going to be massive excesses in energy usage today because of capitalist expansion + overproduction, not to mention commuting and transport of goods from places with cheap labour.
May 25 2005 11:14
#7
i'd like to see all non renewables phased out asap - and realistic renewables phased in asap - but i certainly wouldnt want to see nuclear, coal etc shut down overnight, it would take years to switch over
May 25 2005 12:27
#8
kalabine wrote:
i'd like to see all non renewables phased out asap - and realistic renewables phased in asap - but i certainly wouldnt want to see nuclear, coal etc shut down overnight, it would take years to switch over
Hippie.
May 25 2005 14:05
#9
'kin ell!
I'm really surprised some people on here are nuetral on nuclear power.
May 25 2005 14:13
#10
I tend to try and make my own mind up about things instead of just swallowing all positions associated with 'the left' (not implying that anyone where is doing that- just that this issue isn't immediately clear in terms of its relation to the class struggle).
I'm up for being convinced...
May 25 2005 14:15
#11
pingtiao wrote:
1/ Current energy demands cannot be met using renewables alone, let along the projected energy needs for the next decade or two
Well, recent research in using a mix of renewable energies suggests it can supply enough energy:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1481542,00.html
Quote:
if you plan the right mix, renewable and intermittent technologies can even be made to match real-time electricity demand patterns. This reduces the need for backup, and makes renewables a serious alternative to conventional power sources." In particular, it puts renewables ahead of nuclear power, which runs at the same rate all the time regardless of fluctuations in demand.
May 25 2005 14:24
#12
The thing is- that's a comment in a national paper about one study. If I learnty one thing over the past 10 years, it's that science mediated by papers ain't a reliable way to guage actual scientific consensus.
May 25 2005 14:37
#13
Ok true. But if you keep an open mind it still casts doubt on the 'there is no alternative' angle.
So the idea that:
Quote:
1/ Current energy demands cannot be met using renewables alone, let along the projected energy needs for the next decade or two
may not actually be true.
cheers
May 25 2005 14:57
#14
revol68 wrote:
which require far less outlay and once inplace you can't charge people for using the sun or wind.
As an aside, why not, companies already charge us for water, or is that the supply of water?
May 25 2005 15:53
#15
pingtiao wrote:
It seems like nuclear power needs to be kept until we can destroy capital and institute a more efficient production regime.
A few problems
1. The waste is not only very dangerous but around for a long time. And you can't simply turn off the power stations and walk away 'come the revolution'. Every extra power plant now is a huge headache for the future.
2. Capitalism as we all know has a tendency to put profit before safety - a major nuclear accident could kill millions of workers (and a few bosses) and poison our kids for generations to come. I might risk nuclear power under anarchism but no way under capitalism.
3. Nuclear power requires a lot of security - the British nuclear police have all sorts of powers beyond those of the ordinary cops. This problem would not go away with an anarchist society.
4. It's actually not very efficent at generating energy anyway - once decommissioning costs are taken into account it is by far the most expensive of all the methods.
May 25 2005 17:15
#16
Joe, aren't those all just criticisms of nuclear power though?
How do you address the argument that there simply doesn't seem to be any other way of plugging the energy gap?
If there is no feasible way to plug the gap, and you then argue against nuclear, which class is going to suffer when energy becomes scarce? Isn't it a limited good to attempt to delay the crash while we build our power? Given the time scales we are looking at here, i'd rather the w/c is not subject to the crash while it is as weak as it is now...
May 25 2005 17:27
#17
pingtiao wrote:
How do you address the argument that there simply doesn't seem to be any other way of plugging the energy gap?
What evidence is there for this argument beyond the claims of the nuclear industry?
May 25 2005 17:37
#18
Well, as an impartial observer not especially prone to swallowing corporate propaganda, as far as I have read...quite alot actually (when the actual time-scales involved are looked at).
May 25 2005 17:59
#19
pingtiao wrote:
Joe, aren't those all just criticisms of nuclear power though?How do you address the argument that there simply doesn't seem to be any other way of plugging the energy gap?
Being devil's advocate, cos I'm not anti-nuclear...
Why do you want to plug the energy gap capital has created?
If you just mean you'd "support" nuclear power to the extent of not opposing for it, and say arguing for others not to oppose it then fine, but you do seem to be straying onto the ground of managing capital
May 25 2005 18:11
#20
Quote:
Being devil's advocate, cos I'm not anti-nuclear...1. Why do you want to plug the energy gap capital has created?
2. If you just mean you'd "support" nuclear power to the extent of not opposing for it, and say arguing for others not to oppose it then fine, but you do seem to be straying onto the ground of managing capital
1. "If there is no feasible way to plug the gap, and you then argue against nuclear, which class is going to suffer when energy becomes scarce? Isn't it a limited good to attempt to delay the crash while we build our power? Given the time scales we are looking at here, i'd rather the w/c is not subject to the crash while it is as weak as it is now..."
2. the former
May 25 2005 18:14
#21
pingtiao wrote:
2. the former
Cool 8)
May 25 2005 18:19
#22
Did anyone see the panel on Newsnight a couple of weeks ago? They all (ALL) laughed their heads off when the chair asked "Do you think people can be persuaded to reduce their energy consumption?".
I lived about two miles from Bradwell Nuclear Power station aged 6-11, and two kids in my primary school (of 150) developed Leukemia while I was there. So I'm firmly anti-nuclear.
I think the potential crises from building new nuclear stations would be worse for the working class than an energy shortage - since an energy shortage could be fixed quite quickly by installing energy efficiency measures in lots of homes very quickly and reduced consumption, nuclear's long term effects are potentially much, much worse.
There's another alternative - new coal power stations which use technology to trap the carbon emissions. The Greens were arguing for this a while ago. Plenty of coal in the UK for a long time to come.
May 25 2005 18:21
#23
Yea, but getting it out of the ground has been kinda untenable for about 12 years...
May 25 2005 18:24
#24
Jack wrote:
Yea, but getting it out of the ground has been kinda untenable for about 12 years...
Nah nuclear was only more "profitable" cos of thatcher + co's subsidies.
Catch does technology to remove carbon emissions work? I thought it didn't...
May 25 2005 18:24
#25
Not necessarily if we run out of everything else. Technology could improve as well. I'd go for renewables/energy efficiency followed by world social revolution in about 25 years meself, just pointing the coal option out
May 25 2005 18:26
#26
John. wrote:
Catch does technology to remove carbon emissions work? I thought it didn't...
No idea, but the bloke on Newsnight seemed confident.
May 25 2005 18:27
#27
John. wrote:
Jack wrote:
Yea, but getting it out of the ground has been kinda untenable for about 12 years...Nah nuclear was only more "profitable" cos of thatcher + co's subsidies.
Almost all the closed pits were profitable, I'm well aware of that.
But since 1992, there are fuck all working miners or open collieries (sp). It'd be a pretty huge investment...
May 25 2005 18:27
#28
Projected supply and demand until 2050
May 25 2005 18:39
#29
Jack wrote:
It'd be a pretty huge investment...
No argument with that, but surely no bigger and a lot safer ( if the carbon restriction stuff works) than nuclear?
May 25 2005 18:45
#30
The "Pentagon's New Map" people reckon that world population levels will stablise then reduce around 2050 due to birth rate reductions in lots of countries that are currently expanding quickly. I don't think demand will necessarily raise in a straight line - a lot of home appliances use less electricity than they used to (although there's a lot more of them as well)
Yeah I think I agree, nuclear power does seem like a good bet for now... although of course being libertarians we shouldn't concern ourselves with the management of capital, no matter how "practical" it sounds.