Nuclear Power
- This topic has 4 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
i know the party consists of different opinions on this issue and we defer to the future generations to decide on choice of energy generation but i thought some may find this pro-nuke essay of interest and refreshing from the usual anti nuclear energy fare on offer, written by an American Trotskyist.
Refreshing yes. And of course we have the same position on GM crops and fracking, i.e that if they can be made safe (as they can technologically) then there is no objectioni n principle to using them in a socialist society but it is up to the members of that society to decide for themselves democratically whether or not to use them. We are no more anti-GM or anti-fracking in principle than we are anti-nuclear.Incidentally, rather surprisingly from someone who I think is closely associated with the Marxists Internet Archive, he attributes Engels's Principles of Communism to Marx.
Just to keep the pot boiling the blog has just posted about when renewable energy is not renewable and suggests that the alternative maybe a low-energy society…a return to the consumption levels of the 70s! http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-low-energy-world.html
I thought this report may also be of interest – nuclear fusion powerhttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29710811 Lockheed has unveiled a plan to develop a compact, magnetic fusion device in less than a decade. The team believe they have found a new way of squeezing atoms together so they fuse and generate energy, in a small-scale magnetic device.They argue that their device, which would fit on the back of a truck, could produce 100 megawatts (MW) of power and use just 25kg of fuel in a year.The unfortunate aspect of this possible innovation is again capitalism and competition.
Quote:"I don't know in this case. It might be that they have some good ideas, but partly because they are doing it commercially they are not going to tell us, so it can't be subject to the normal scientific peer review. If they do have some innovative ideas they'd be fools to tell us."The really foolish thing is keeping secret a way of saving the planet and not enlisting the help and support and expertise of many others “
The Daily Telegraph carries an interesting storyquoting Prof David King http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/11244499/Nuclear-power-may-not-be-needed-says-top-atomic-advocate.html
Quote:Britain “might well” be able to do without atomic power altogether, and that the real priority should be on developing ways of storing electricity so as to be able to depend on famously intermittent sun and wind. “We have to keep reassessing the situation”, he said. “I believe that what we need, more than anything, is a surge of activity to develop energy storage capability….Once we can do that technologically, why would we not just keep with renewables.” For a country like India, with plenty of sunlight and deserts where it can be collected, he went on, “there’s no reason” for it not to go “directly wholesale into solar energy”. After all it was already “three to four times” cheaper to provide villages unconnected to the grid in India and China with solar electric panels and batteries than to connect them up.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.