The Socialist Energy Policy
- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A power plant in the Chinese city of Luoyang in the central Henan province burns used and worn banknotes instead of coal to generate electricity.
According to the power plant, one ton of banknotes is capable of generating over 600 kWh of electricity, and is more environmentally friendly than using coal.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/12/11/389716/china-plant-burns-money-to-make-power/
Imagine when we add all those stock and shares certificates, the property deeds, the commercial contracts to the furnace….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30525539
Quote:Goldman Sachs has suggested $930bn of projects, worldwide, could fail to get the go-ahead next year. And the North Sea is seen as one of the higher-cost, lower-return regions for investment.This is, again, the difference between the speed information travels through the market, and the real timepractical implementation of decisions will mean that this contraction in oil investment could have knock effects for years to come, as plants and staff are mothballed, knowledge and skills are lost and it will take time to replace them and the necessary infrastructure to resuscitate the Scottish oilfields (adding additional costs that such projects would not need to incurr now).Obviously, while in socialism would have to 'rest' lnes of production that were unnecessary, we wouldn't need to dismantle the infrastructure and get it's pesky value off our books. Oil capitalism is about to eat itself.
The green defence of nuclear powerhttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html
Quote:"Nuclear power – being far the most compact and energy-dense of sources – could also make a major, and perhaps leading, contribution …. It is time that conservationists make their voices heard in this policy area…Trade-offs and compromises are inevitable and require advocating energy mixes that minimise net environmental damage. Society cannot afford to risk wholesale failure to address energy-related biodiversity impacts because of preconceived notions and ideals"This i think this has been said by many in the party and in articles in the Standard, while others are still sceptical of such policies.As an aside, i recall the support given by many green conservationists to the declaration of the Chagos Island Marine Reserve, an obvious political ploy to ensure the islanders were refused a chance of return and Diego Garcia remain a US military base. Just saying that to highlight that scientists are fallible. As their letter continues
Quote:"Our main goal was to show – through careful, objective scientific analysis – that on the basis of cost, safety, emissions reduction, land use and pollution, nuclear power must be considered in the future energy mix," he explained.We have to ask just how high on the scale of priority was the pounds and pence. Until they reveal that in their calculations some of us will remain cautious about making choices within the parameters of capitalist accounting, regardless of other worthy motives.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.