[lbo-talk] catastrophy

Carrol Cox cbcox at ilstu.edu
Wed Mar 16 10:12:00 PDT 2011


Nuclear power depends on a assured supply of electricity generated by coal, oil, or gas. Without that assured supplNuclear power depends on a assured supply of electricity generated by coal, oil, or gas. Without that assured supply, nuclear power is impossible. That is not counting the energy required to build the plant or to dispose of its waste products.

Carrol

-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of Alan Rudy Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:02 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] catastrophy

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Jordan: "http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E08-04_ForgetNuclear
> This non-technical summary article compares the cost, climate
> protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success,
> deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with
> those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains why soaring
> taxpayer subsidies aren't attracting investors. Capitalists instead
> favor climate-protecting competitors with less cost, construction
> time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no
> serious rivals, let alone those competitors-which, however, already
> outproduce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster."
>
>
> [WS:] Thanks for this link. He makes a good argument, especially that
> I would like to believe in what he is saying. My original point,
> however, was slightly different - that nuclear is better than coal,
> not that nuclear is better than "soft energy." If "soft energy" can
> replace coal power plant, as he is arguing, this would be of course
> great, but not everyone agrees with this proposition, I am afraid.
>
>
But you do this a lot, Chuck wasn't talking about coal... much less coal vs. nuclear... in fact, he didn't mention alternatives at all but he did mention the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, built right on top of the San Andreas fault, right on the coast... in double fact, Chuck didn't even imply that his concern was associated with personally being downwind. So what you did was construct a complete a total straw man, name it Chuck and others like him, and savage it in the name of technophilic Progressive expertise and implicit proposals that the only real problem is that we can't get energy businesses to listen to you brilliant Progressives. If you'd asked Chuck about coal I bet he'd agree with the idea that its a total, complete and devastatingly chronic ecological, health and social disaster... ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list