Alex_V

Half of all adult Americans seem to spend much of their time suckling at the teat of the Republican party. So they regurgitate right-wing talking points like “virtue signalling” and “woke.” If you are so sure that there are too many people on earth. Why don’t you do something about it? Starting with yourself. No? Well, you are one of the over-populated. Just as anyone else is. So, I think that you might was well start with yourself.

The truth is that we have been destroying our natural world and and eco-systems and plummeting many species to the brink of extinction a century ago, half a century ago. When the population of earth was half or quarter what it is now. There is never enough to go around, no matter what the population. We currently ‘suffer’ an abundance of food and resources because there is hunger and deprivation everywhere. That is where the principle of ‘justice’ comes in. Land and resources are being taken from indigenous people everywhere. In South and Central America defenders of the rights of indigenous tribes and poor farmers are murdered on a daily basis. With environmental destruction following in their wake. The poor work their fingers to the bone and still go hungry. That’s a question of access to resources and ‘justice.’

GMOs and pesticides have had plenty of time to feed everyone. But, they never seem to. Why not? They are business models, operating within capitalism, crafted by crafty businessmen who build a monopoly to crush all opposition. They ultimately aim to own the intellectual property of the food that we eat. GM corn and the pesticide together work like this: You buy their corn, and use their pesticide (that kills almost every living thing except their corn which was engineered to more-or-less survive the poison) and you make x % profit. If you keep aside the seeds to plant next season, they sue you. If you keep aside non-GM corn they sue you, just in case (true story). They sold us the idea that the market will be free to buy or refuse GM produce, as we wish. Then they bribe politicians to remove the requirement to label GM food. Which means that even if you don’t want to eat the stuff, you can’t tell by reading the package. 

GeorgeBMac said:

Very true!

The part that bothers me is that most of the risk of nuclear is avoidable if the designers and operators simply did the right thing instead of the cheap and expedient thing.   (But even then, "shit happens".  When I worked with the Red Cross one of our jobs was to practice the evacuation of Beaver County near Pittsburgh in the event of a melt down of the reactor there).

Perhaps one day all of the fossil fuel and nuclear power plants will be replaced with something both clean and renewable.  But, as always, human stupidity and greed will gum up those works too.)

Fascinating! I completely agree with you about human greed. Our world has numerous urgent challenges. Transitioning to renewable energy is the lowest of all hanging fruits! It is entirely possible with technology from 50 years ago. Naysayers can go to hell! But, even having done that, we will have made only the first step to a sustainable, just, and equitable world.

GeorgeBMac said:

Alex_V said:

Once more, in short:

If you're doing a cost benefit comparison you need to ask who pays for the excess fires, floods and droughts brought on by fossil fuel power plants.

That's not that I'm advocating one over the other.  Merely to point out that every power source has its pluses & minuses.

We agree that burning fossil fuels has to end. I don’t see how nuclear power can be “clean” or “green.” Plus, it is incalculably expensive if you consider the full life-cycle of use. The spent fuel at the Tepco-run Fukushima nuclear power station when it was hit by the tsunami, was sitting in pools waiting to be disposed of. They planned to eventually dispose of it in some future underground caverns. That’s a huge undertaking, even more than the original power station itself. Who would pay for all of that? The Japanese government, that is, the taxpayer. Not Tepco. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs. All the spent radioactive fuel of nuclear power plants (extremely toxic to life) all around the world is ominously lying in pools, waiting for some future date when the governments and taxpayers will pay to do something about it. 

Once more, in short: The problem with nuclear technology is that it uses the most toxic substances known to humans. They remain toxic for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. They are dangerous in use and there is no completely secure way to dispose of spent fuel. The second problem is that the price of electricity from nuclear does not account for disposal of the spent fuel. Nuclear power is “competitive” only if you ignore the cost of disposal of fuel, dismantling the reactors etc at the end of life. How much does it cost to dispose of waste safely? Incalculable, because you have to watch over it forever. Who pays to dispose of waste and dismantle old reactors? Governments do, tax payers do. Who doesn't pay? The companies that run the nuclear power plants, who have no intention of incurring the cost of disposal. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs. The risks associated with nuclear power necessitate a highly militarised and policed society to secure the nuclear industry that is inherently secretive and security-obsessed, for obvious reasons. We citizens cede some of our liberty in order to afford such a dangerous technology in our midst. In contrast: solar and wind power have have no equivalent risks, they can be implemented at small-scale by us citizens in our backyard on roof etc. They are inherently more democratic.

The problem with nuclear technology is that it uses the most toxic substances known to humans. They remain toxic for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Longer than human civilisation has existed. It’s impossible to “safely” extract, use, and dispose of these substances. In fact, we know if no completely secure way to dispose of spent fuel.

The second problem is that the costing of nuclear technology never fully accounts for disposal of the spent fuel. In other words, nuclear energy is “competitive” only if you ignore the cost of disposal of fuel and the reactors etc at the end of life. A nuclear reactor lasts about 50 years. All around the world, at nuclear power plants like Fukushima, the spent fuel is lying in pools, just sitting there. Why don’t they dispose of the fuel? Too expensive. What are they waiting for? The government to do something about it—in other words the taxpayer must pay to dispose nuclear waste in deep tunnels under the earth. Cost of disposal and securing? Incalculable (best guess), because you have to sit and watch over it forever. Many power plants are run by private companies with no intention of incurring the cost of disposal. Privatise the profits, socialise the costs.

The third problem with nuclear power is that it is very dangerous and requires the support of a military industrial complex. In other words, you need a highly militarised and policed society in order to secure the nuclear industry. In other words we, citizens, are required to cede some of our personal political freedoms in order to afford such a dangerous technology in our midst. Nuclear power is looked on favourably by military industrial complexes or by totalitarian regimes. It is inherently secretive and security-obsessed, for obvious reasons. In contrast: solar and wind power, for example, have issues, but they have no equivalent risks, they can be implemented at small-scale by individual citizens in your backyard on your roof etc. They are inherently more democratic.