Re: [Marxism] Indo-US Nuclear Deal: EPW Editorial

[dave.walters@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Sukla's argument by proxy continues along with the latest post from 
countercurrents. I only want to 
take up one part of this editorial:

"Nuclear power has a bleak future worldwide - despite
global warming, which the nuclear industry claims it
can mitigate. Nuclear power can only make an
insignificant contribution to greenhouse gas
reduction. A just-published Oxford Research Group
study says that for nuclear industry's contribution to
be significant, the global industry would have to
construct about one reactor a week for 60 years - an
absurdity."

First, stating that atomic energy has a "bleak future" might be one of those 
overstated arguments 
that proejects wishful thinking over serious reality. This has less to do with 
India's controversial 
nuclear program than the rather ignorant statement about the future world wide. 
So, excluding India 
for a moment, we should examine what is actually going on out there...

>From zero to many. That's the correct generalization about nuclear energy. 
>Romania just put on a 
800 MW atomic plant *last week*. China just went on line with another Russian 
reactor at 1,000 
MWs. 30 countries than never seriously considered nuclear energy are now doing 
so, and quite seriously.

Accrording World Nuclear Association China has *now* 13,000 MWs of nuclear 
power 
plant constuction under way or about to start. That's 12 NPPs breaking ground 
right now. Between 
now and 2011 another 17 NPPs are being planned. Between now and 2015 at total 
of 70 NPPs 
are being planned. When the Chinese do something, it appears, it does so in a 
serous way. The 
Chinese plants, alone, account for ALL the "Renewable" MWs being proposed via 
solar or wind for 
the same period. These plants, each one of them, stems carbon emissions in the 
millions of tons per 
year. Everyone of these plants, were they not to be built, would be replaced 
with coal plants. There 
are no campaigns, I notice, to stop anyone from building coal plants anywhere. 
They are the single 
biggest stationary carbon emitters in the world. No campaign. I wonder how 
serious this is?

S.Korea, Russia, and Japan are all planning or building dozens of NPPs. I want 
to know why the 
writer things that nuclear energy has a 'bleak future'? Over 20 NPPs in the US, 
I might add, have 
had their operating licenses extended for *two decades*. Perhaps this is a 
commentary on the 
almost non-existenet anti-nuclear power movement in the US? The frist 
Construction and 
Operating License has not been submitted to the NRC to build a new reactor. 8 
more are expected 
by the end of this year and beginning of next year. The list goes on and on and 
shows NPP, even 
under current globalizing capitalism seems quite alive and far from 'bleak'.

The idea that nuclear power can only make an insignificant reduction in 
greenhouse gases is not 
only insane, it's totally irresponsible. IF this were indeed the case, one has 
to wonder why people propose wind and solar which contribute almost *nothing* 
to carbon abatement. What kind of 
carbon emission would we have, and would it make a difference of any signifance 
if all 400 plus 
NPPs burned fossil? What do ya' think?

The MIT report states that to make a "significant" dent in emissions then we'd 
have to start building 
a NPP once a week. Right now, China is STILL building one *coal fired plant a 
week.*. To
 implement Germany's "phase out of NPPs", the gov't there is plannign on 
building *26 coal 
plants* burning that nasty lignite coal. Well done! Plants that pollute now, 
plants that kill people in 
the thousands right now...and not a peep from the anti-nuclear (and, perhaps, 
pro-carbon crowd). 
Anti-nuclear activism has a real reactionary aspect to it. Knowing full well 
that elimination of 
base-load carbon emitting power plants, accounting for at least 40% of all 
carbon emissions, 
is impossible with wind and/or solar because of reliability and cost, they seek 
to destroy the 
only bases load non-carbon emitting power source. At the end of the say such a 
program will 
maintain both poverty and pollution levels, killing thousands.

David Walters
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism