[Marxism] [pen-l] Fwd: Is a Controversial Nuclear Plant to Blame for Soaring Thyroid Cancer Rates in New York? | Alternet,

Nick Fredman nick.j.fredman at gmail.com
Tue Dec 12 20:57:54 MST 2017


I don’t think David gets that I say that the death ratio figures by energy
source are static because they don’t deal with a transition, that is the
differential effect of transitioning to nukes vs transitioning to actual
renewable power. As nuke plants take much longer and use a lot more energy
to build than say solar thermal plant, a transition to nukes will cause
more death and disease, *from fossil fuels*. This is without even
considering the excess cancer from plants and millennia of waste (possibly
small possibly not with accidents).

I don’t think the Dissent article shows the “failure” of renewables in
Germany any more successfully than pro-nuker Geoff Russell in this
Australian left-liberal outlet
https://newmatilda.com/2017/11/08/greens-at-a-fork-in-the-road-evidence-based-decisions-or-mob-rule/.
Geoff thinks he has a killer argument because although the replacement of
some nuke power by more renewables has in fact led to a fall in emissions,
this fall is smaller than the previous fall made by replacing some fossil
fuels by nukes. But all this shows is that renewables are a better
replacement for fossil fuels than nukes, and the Germans should be rapidly
replacing fossil fuels, as well as nukes, with renewables. As should the
French and everybody else.

That bourgeois governments haven’t been game to take on fossil fuels nearly
enough is the point with the so far small (but real including cf nukes)
fall in emissions in Germany. The left recently showed defeating big carbon
was feasible in South Australia, with a new solar thermal rather than coal
or gas plant, well short of a workers government, whereas the idea of
anyone campaigning for nukes is in the Australian vernacular pushing shit
uphill with a pointed stick.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 at 9:17 am, Nick Fredman <nick.j.fredman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I don’t think David gets that I say that the death ratio figures by energy
> source are static because they don’t deal eith a transition, that is the
> differential effect of transitioning to nukes vs transitioning to actual
> renewable power. As nuke plants take much longer and use a lot more energy
> to build than say solar thermal plant, a transition to nukes will cause
> more death and disease, *from fossil fuels*. This is without even
> considering the excess cancer from plants and millennia of waste (possibly
> small possibly not with accidents).
>
> I don’t think the Dissent article shows the “failure” of renewables in
> Germany any more successfully than pro-nuker Geoff Russell in this
> Australian left-liberal outlet
> https://newmatilda.com/2017/11/08/greens-at-a-fork-in-the-road-evidence-based-decisions-or-mob-rule/.
> Geoff thinks he has a killer argument because although the replacement of
> some nuke power by more renewables has in fact led to a fall in emissions,
> this fall is smaller than the previous fall made by replacing some fossil
> fuels by nukes. But all this shows is that renewables are a better
> replacement for fossil fuels than nukes, and the Germans should be rapidly
> replacing fossil fuels, as well as nukes, with renewables. As should the
> French and everybody else.
>
> That bourgeois governments haven’t been game to take on fossil fuels
> nearly enough is the point with the so far small (but real including cf
> nukes) fall in emissions in Germany. The left recently showed defeating big
> carbon was feasible in South Australia, with a new solar thermal rather
> than coal or gas plant, well short of a workers government, whereas the
> idea of anyone campaigning for nukes is in the Australian vernacular
> pushing shit uphill with a pointed stick.
>
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 at 1:45 am, DW <dwaltersmia at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:59 AM, Nick Fredman <nick.j.fredman at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well I was just commenting on one aspect of the evidence that been used,
>>> but I'll be more general. One big problem with David’s claim that his
>>> figures on deaths attributable to forms of power shows that nuclear power
>>> entails least risk to human health is that they're a static picture of the
>>> current situation of nukes being a small proportion of global power usage
>>> and don't tell us much about the real issue, the related technical and
>>> political aspects of de-carbonising the current economy.
>>>
>>> Indeed...this was a health centered discussion in response to a
>> haphazard posting by Louis P. Actually, Nick, it's very important. It's not
>> 'static' at all: it is showing the deaths per unit of energy for most types
>> of energy. It is used as risk assessment and it totally dynamic as these
>> numbers can and do change as various forms of energy start predominating
>> over other forms. But those numbers are only 'static' because it shows
>> which are safe and which are not. And it shows that nuclear is safer...the
>> proportions don't change that much. Nuclear is a "small proportion" of
>> global power usage...if you mean electricity? It's around 16%...not so
>> small.
>>
>>
>>> If he seriously wants leftists and environmentalists in a country like
>>> Australia, with no nuclear power and a massive over-reliance on fossil
>>> fuels, to somehow be convinced that 99% of them are wrong and that nukes
>>> should be campaigned for, to the extent that they are successful in the
>>> massive task of convincing the public that this is a good idea and the huge
>>> investment already in solar, hydro and wind a less good idea, then there
>>> would be a massive use in *fossil-fuel* derived energy to build the things,
>>> and the resultant deaths and disease from that extra use of energy, and
>>> while they're being built the 5-10+ years of the current massive use of
>>> fossil fuels continuing, optimistically, before they helped in any way.
>>> That's all in the unlikely event that they'd be a plausible political force
>>> that would both build nuclear power and wind down fossil fuels, of which
>>> there is now virtually zero.
>>>
>>> On the other hand the alliance of activists, scientists and engineers
>>> Beyond Zero Emissions http://bze.org.au/ have a feasible plan for a
>>> rapid transition to renewables with ideas that have wide support among the
>>> left, the Greens, Labor left, unions and the public, and with technology
>>> and infrastructure that's being rolled out now. That this is political
>>> feasible on a big scale with a stronger left and environmental movement is
>>> shown by the recent victory by a broad front of campaigners including
>>> Socialist Alliance members in pressuring the South Australian Labor
>>> government to replace a coal fired plant with a big solar thermal plant,
>>> which will be online in 3 years.
>>>
>>> Indeed...never said it was going to be easy :).   The left most places
>> has long ago given up it's science based understanding of political economy
>> for knee-jerk...and not serious, concern about climate change. No solar
>> thermal plant has or ever will replace the same equivalent of coal. Germany
>> has shown the failure of renewables to replace  fossil fuel, where that
>> country just put on line the largest coal plant in Europe and built scads
>> of natural gas turbines. If you read the articles in Dissent I posted (a
>> debate actually) Germany has been an unmitigated failure and they will
>> never reach their goals. As opposed to nuclear France where close to 80% of
>> their grid is nuclear powered and they did away with fossil fuel for
>> generation in 15 years. Don't say it can't be done, Nick. It has. Wanna
>> guess which big country in Europe has the lowest carbon footprint and why?
>>
>> David Walters
>>
>>>
>>>
>>



More information about the Marxism mailing list