[lbo-talk] "Realism" and the Environment

[Ric Mallamo]

"Nuclear is being promoted as a relatively cost-free way of filling 
that gap ... FWIW, an environmentalist friend of mine tends to the view 
that nuclear is perhaps the least worst solution." - Simon

It's interesting how the right has successfully (again!) propagated 
this meme that the environmental movement is now all agog over nuclear 
power as the way to forestall global warming. Nonsense. A couple of 
noted environmentalists panic, and this is characterized as a movement.

While nuclear power plants emit no appreciable carbon emissions, that 
is about the only benefit they offer. However, there are numerous 
strikes against them.

Before I get into that, let me remind the less technically astute just 
how a power plant works. Electricity -- and remember, the point of this 
is electricity; there's no such thing as nuclear "energy" -- is created 
by spinning a power generator, which is somewhat like a giant version 
of any electrical motor you have lying around your house, except it 
works in reverse, sending electrical current back out into the world. 
Typically, the generator is attached to a steam turbine. Here's where 
the fun begins. To make the steam to turn the turbine (which turns the 
generator which makes electricity), you have to heat water. There are 
numerous ways to heat water, but basically you burn something: coal, 
natural gas, fuel oil, biomass, whatever. In a nuclear reactor, you run 
water pipes past the fuel rods, which are hot, to boil the water. 
Essentially, all that stuff and bother with nuclear technology is just 
another way to boil water. That's all. Think about it.

COST. Factoring in construction and subsequent decommissioning (and 
then more construction and decommissioning, since a nuke is only good 
for about 25 years before it's too hot for anyone to work in one any 
longer); the mining and processing and transportation of the nuclear 
fuel; and finally, the massive security needed to guard a plant: 
nuclear is hellaciously expensive -- certainly not "cost-free.". One 
poster was spot-on in pointing out that wind power is now cheaper per 
KwH than nuclear. I understand the public relations problems that wind 
has encountered (gee, I wonder who orchestrated THAT new opposition?!), 
but if nuclear -- NUCLEAR! for god's sake -- can be rehabilitated in 
the public's mind, making wind power seem like a great idea should be a 
piece of cake.

SAFETY. A nuclear plant can theoretically be run with little or no 
danger to the outside world. But complexity is the enemy of theory. In 
practical fact, nuke plants release toxic substances more frequently 
than people know, poisoning the air, ground water, and soil in the 
general vicinity. And while nuclear plants cannot explode like a 
nuclear bomb, they can have disastrous breakdowns, as at Chernobyl. 
(Yes, we have better designs now, blah, blah. But still, accidents do 
happen.) Beyond the plant doors are the long-term sites for the waste, 
the transportation of nuclear materials, the mining of the ore and the 
toll that takes on miners, and so on. Yes coal and other sources are no 
picnic either; but I didn't say I was a big coal fan, either. Finally, 
nuclear power plants fit in nicely to a world of terrorism. Foreign 
terrorists see them as both a site for mischief and a source of 
materials for their own bombs. And the US government has been 
terrorizing the planet with it own nuclear arsenal for a half century.

SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS. By it nature, nuclear power necessitates a police 
state approach to public power. There's nothing warm and cuddly about 
nuclear power or the people associated with it. No nostalgic image of 
the old wooden nuclear power plant out on the prairie. It's part of the 
world of the Pentagon, operating in a shadowy secret universe that 
fends off public scrutiny. More nukes means more places off-limits, 
more security patrols, more no-fly zones -- less freedom.

OPPORTUNITY COSTS. The massive amounts of money that will be needed to 
ramp up all the nuclear plants we might need to replace fossil fuel 
could be better spent on developing, improving and rolling out 
alternative energy sources. And the cheapest new energy source, of 
course, is conservation. We haven't even begun to achieve the 
efficiencies we can with all of our current (no pun intended) 
activities. Let's not just turn trillions of dollars over to the 
Bechtels et al who will give us nothing in return but heartache. Let's 
actually invest in a livable future.

Now let's look at GM food.

As Food First has noted for years, there is no scarcity of food in the 
world, merely injustices in distribution.
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html

GM foods are a "solution" in search of a problem. GM has the primary 
goal of removing self-sufficiency from the farmer, who historically has 
saved seeds and replanted, and making the farmer completely dependent 
on the GM company (e.g. Monsanto) for everything from seed to the 
now-necessary chemicals, etc. Simply put, the farmer pays Monsanto for 
inputs that were (and still could be) freely available from nature. In 
a replay of the old feudal system, the farmer becomes nothing but a 
vassal to corporate America. This is socially evil and does nothing to 
provide good nutritious food ( whole other subject). It centralizes 
control of the very stuff of life into the hands of a few people who 
have profits, not the public good, at heart.

As for roads ... ROADS?! in the very year we are probably hitting the 
peak oil event, how can anyone talk of more roads? We need to budget 
our remaining fossil fuels, using that uniquely powerful energy source 
for rebuilding our infrastructure so that we can lead decent lives post 
oil. What we CAN continue to generate for the foreseeable future, 
albeit in smaller quantities, is electricity. Thus, the best 
long-distance conveyance might well be electrified trains. (What the 
airline industry is going to do in the future escapes me ... unless 
they will be given some alien-derived anti-gravity propulsion that the 
US government has been working on over in Area 51 :-))

Enough for now. Hard-headed business people need to come to grips. It 
doesn't even make ECONOMIC sense to continue in our prevailing, 
industrial mindset. Indeed, numerous studies have demonstrated the 
potential for a tremendous economic expansion from the transition. Only 
the totalitarian mindset can see a benefit from the status quo. 
Unfortunately, the totalitarian mindset, amplified by a culture of 
corruption and mind-boggling stupidity, is what is running things in 
America these days.

Ric