Per B.: "A marxist in the leish of an oilsheik"
rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun Aug 25 18:40:49 MDT 1996
[In the context of my series:
'Why "reds are "nukes" - Debate with Louis N. P' and
'Why the chemical fuels are NOT "fossil"',
I'm forwarding this reply from newsgroups. - RM]
From: en9305 at energi.ing.hb.se (Per Bergqvist)
Newsgroups: sci.energy Subject: A marxist in the leish of an oilsheik.
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 96 15:32:44 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
This posting is intended to take the arguments from Rolf Martens
down piece for piece. It contains one part with a more or less
scientific angle, and one with a more political/personal angle.
THE SCIENTIFIC ANGLE:
I will take the issues one by one and try to give my point of view.
As Rolf Martens I am not an expert on these matters, not yet finished
my B.Sc. in electrical engineering. I have taken some courses in
energyconvertions and read some atricels about the Swedish energy
1/ Global heating. A debate is going on wether the global heating
are man made or is a normal fluctuation in the temperature over the
decades. In any case, most of the gases that the combustion of oil,
coal or natural gas produces have undoubtedly
2/ Fossil fuels. Yes there have been oil in the planet for a 'long'
time, fossil or cosmical does not matter. There may be millions of
tons of it, but since the planet does not, as long as I know, have
an infinite volume the amount that you can take out is limited.
It is not limited to our short time here, not even to our childrens
lifetime, but the thing is that it is limited. The resources known
to be economicaly sound to exploit will with todays consumption last
for: oil: 40 to 50 years, coal: >200 years.
This impies that the third world never will reach our standard of
living, before, for instance, automobiles, as we know them today,
are passed on to the museums for good. Of course there are more oil
to find, but at what cost, and who will pay for it. I am sure that the
proletariat never will afford it.
The conclusion I am trying to point out is that the resources may
seem to be 'for ever' but they are not. We should not pass on
technologies to coming generations that rely on a limited suply of fuel.
3/ Polution You must be blind, death, dumb and stupid not notice the
problem. It will not be an iminent problem before Rolf Martens is
dead, if he does not intend to live for ever, but it sure as hell
should not be passed on to his children if he has any.
The point I'm making is that the amount of work you put in this
problem must reach the level that you can look in to your
grandchildrens eyes, and say: I did what I could!
4/ Nuclear power. A nuclear reactor produces a wast amount of
energy, that much is true. But if you look at it with an engineers
eyes it is a huge failure, in my point of view. To start at the
begining: You dig a large hole in the ground, usually not in the
country that owns the reactor. Out of one thousand kilo rock you get
aproximately one hundred grams of uranium.
This uranium consists of manly two isotopes, U235 and U238. It is
U238 that most reactors need to work properly, at its raw stadium
the amount of U238 is 0.4% to 0.7% depending on the quality. It
needs to enrichened to at least 4%, a work that consumes a large
amount of energy. When the fuel is burnt out, again containing 0.7%
of U238, it is stored for a while to 'cool of a bit'. Then it is
reburied in the ground for a few hundred generations, this makes
some people think that it is recycled to the nature.
The amount of energy that you get out of the generator is about 15%
of what you put in with the uranium, a very bad machine if you see
it that way. Not to speak about the safety problem. That alone
means that only 'very' developed countries should build one if
they do not want to rely on other peoples skills and knowledge.
THE POLITICAL/PERSONAL ANGLE:
It semms to me that Rolf Martens has the ordinary socialists habit
of combining sticking their heads in the sand and looking at the
future in a rear-view mirror. Most of the ideas that you can read
in his postings should be found in alt.conspiracy.theories if that
Believing that ordinary people never can reach a point of view
without being fooled by the government seems very strange to me.
Of course most people, like Rolf Martens, tend believe what they
want, never caring about taking a second opinion on the matter,
choosing very carefully what they read, not to be disturbed with
anythinh that contradicts what they already know to be 'the truth'.
This is a very usual habit among all kind of extremists, being
leftside or rightside of the political scale.
As he speaks about the acute differences between proletariat and
bourgeoisie it seems to me that there are a few decades of world
events missing here. Of course the Germans in the east part were
fooled by Mercedes and Philips to overthrow the peoples government
and yes the socialist government has never killed any of their own
people, they were merely dissidents and contra-revolutionary in the
need of some minor mindcorrection. As I would like to add to the
list of rare species is the 'thinking marxist'.
I am in no way to be caled a fascist or rightwing-extremist, I am
merely an humanist. With this I will from now on try to keep out
of the ploitical discussions in this newsgroup and stick to the
[So far Per B.]
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism