Nuclear Power and Capitalism

It seems that capitalism showed to lack the responsability necessary to administrate a nuclear facility safely.

After the Chernobyl incident being blamed on the typical "USSR Comunist Anthics", how will this catastrophic event change the perception that the capitalism is any better at dealing with technological problems such as the energy production?

Yeah, a meltdown is a meltdown. I'm not sure we can specifically pin it to the fault of capitalism or communism, but I guessing the reactionaries can "shut their piehole" about Chernobyl now.

Sustainable Development will replace nuclear power, and is something I think our movement should be 100% behind.

Does anyone know of any good books on the issue of nuclear power? I would like to educate myself on the issue.

Bladridigan wrote:Does anyone know of any good books on the issue of nuclear power? I would like to educate myself on the issue.

The best book I have come across on the subject is Nuclear Power: Both Sides: The Best Arguments For and Against the Most Controversial Technology. A book that provides excellent insight into the technology itself is Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century: World Nuclear University Press.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:It seems that capitalism showed to lack the responsability necessary to administrate a nuclear facility safely.

After the Chernobyl incident being blamed on the typical "USSR Comunist Anthics", how will this catastrophic event change the perception that the capitalism is any better at dealing with technological problems such as the energy production?

Regarding nuclear power, I believe that the technology itself, while certainly an improvement over hydrocarbon energy sources, is not a favorable solution to future energy demands. The energy industry is the primary reason why energy development has stagnated and languishes, as this industry profits from the continued use of inefficient hydrocarbon fuels. My preferred solution to the approaching energy crisis involves the single greatest source of energy in our solar system: the Sun. If the technology for channeling such energy were refined (something purposely neglected due to the monopolization of energy by the petroleum and fossil fuels industries), the energy potential would be virtually limitless. The Sun emits more energy in one day than the entire human population consumes in a year, and, more importantly, the energy is clean and renewable.

Solar energy is but one alternative amongst many whose importance will certainly vary by geography. Other clean and renewable energy sources are wind, hydropower, ocean, biomass, and geothermal, all of which are viable alternatives that may be utilized alongside each other depending upon necessity and convenience. Only when we support the Earth will the Earth support us.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:Regarding nuclear power, I believe that the technology itself, while certainly an improvement over hydrocarbon energy sources, is not a favorable solution to future energy demands. The energy industry is the primary reason why energy development has stagnated and languishes, as this industry profits from the continued use of inefficient hydrocarbon fuels. My preferred solution to the approaching energy crisis involves the single greatest source of energy in our solar system: the Sun. If the technology for channeling such energy were refined (something purposely neglected due to the monopolization of energy by the petroleum and fossil fuels industries), the energy potential would be virtually limitless. The Sun emits more energy in one day than the entire human population consumes in a year, and, more importantly, the energy is clean and renewable.

Solar energy is but one alternative amongst many whose importance will certainly vary by geography. Other clean and renewable energy sources are wind, hydropower, ocean, biomass, and geothermal, all of which are viable alternatives that may be utilized alongside each other depending upon necessity and convenience. Only when we support the Earth will the Earth support us.

I completely agree. It should come as no real surprise that the energy corporations have a profound interest in suppressing all serious efforts directed at adequately investing in the relevant research and development necessary to transition into such clean, sustainable alternatives—at least for the time being. Until these interests can consolidate the rights to an adequate number of emerging alternative energy industries, as well as devise a method by which they can distribute such energy in a manner as profitable as oil, coal, nuclear power, etc., they will continue to obstruct the process at every conceivable level.

I recall watching a panel of scientists discuss this very issue and actually state that no real solution to the energy question will be reached until 'greed and progress' are united to meet those ends. Such are the limitations capitalism imposes on humanity's collective development. Unfortunately, we can seldom afford to wait for such 'market solutions' to come to our salvation. The crisis in Japan is a perfect example of the consequences of waiting for such a state of affairs to (maybe) eventually transpire.

One of the biggest problems we seem to have in England with sustainable tech is, you've probably guessed it - 'money'. All the government seems to focus on is 'wind power', which entails covering almost every high piece of land with huge 'windmill' turbines - why? Simply because the money behind the promotion and development of this 'technology' can usualy be traced back to the very people producing the legislation in the first place.

So 'clean technology', 'sustainable technology', 'dirty technology' or 'nuclear power' at the end of the day it all comes down to 'profits'.

Admin wrote:

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:Regarding nuclear power, I believe that the technology itself, while certainly an improvement over hydrocarbon energy sources, is not a favorable solution to future energy demands. The energy industry is the primary reason why energy development has stagnated and languishes, as this industry profits from the continued use of inefficient hydrocarbon fuels. My preferred solution to the approaching energy crisis involves the single greatest source of energy in our solar system: the Sun. If the technology for channeling such energy were refined (something purposely neglected due to the monopolization of energy by the petroleum and fossil fuels industries), the energy potential would be virtually limitless. The Sun emits more energy in one day than the entire human population consumes in a year, and, more importantly, the energy is clean and renewable.

Solar energy is but one alternative amongst many whose importance will certainly vary by geography. Other clean and renewable energy sources are wind, hydropower, ocean, biomass, and geothermal, all of which are viable alternatives that may be utilized alongside each other depending upon necessity and convenience. Only when we support the Earth will the Earth support us.

I completely agree. It should come as no real surprise that the energy corporations have a profound interest in suppressing all serious efforts directed at adequately investing in the relevant research and development necessary to transition into such clean, sustainable alternatives—at least for the time being. Until these interests can consolidate the rights to an adequate number of emerging alternative energy industries, as well as devise a method by which they can distribute such energy in a manner as profitable as oil, coal, nuclear power, etc., they will continue to obstruct the process at every conceivable level.

I recall watching a panel of scientists discuss this very issue and actually state that no real solution to the energy question will be reached until 'greed and progress' are united to meet those ends. Such are the limitations capitalism imposes on humanity's collective development. Unfortunately, we can seldom afford to wait for such 'market solutions' to come to our salvation. The crisis in Japan is a perfect example of the consequences of waiting for such a state of affairs to (maybe) eventually transpire.

That's Capitalism for ya.

I despise nuclear energy. It is dirty, dangerous, and there is simply no where to put the waste. I think ardent supporters of nuclear energy have a very greedy capitalist mindset. Make as much money as I can in this life, reguardless of what the future consequences are because I won't be alive. Truly despicable.

I would love to see the development of alternative energy sources, so we can keep our beautiful nation clean for us and our future generations.

Arbeiter88 wrote:I despise nuclear energy. It is dirty, dangerous, and there is simply no where to put the waste. I think ardent supporters of nuclear energy have a very greedy capitalist mindset. Make as much money as I can in this life, reguardless of what the future consequences are because I won't be alive. Truly despicable.

I would love to see the development of alternative energy sources, so we can keep our beautiful nation clean for us and our future generations.

Rep for that one. I agree entirely. The supporters of this, and of anything harmful to the nation, have a greedy capitalist mindset, bent upon making money, instead of considering what is best for the nation.

Godfaesten wrote:

Arbeiter88 wrote:I despise nuclear energy. It is dirty, dangerous, and there is simply no where to put the waste. I think ardent supporters of nuclear energy have a very greedy capitalist mindset. Make as much money as I can in this life, reguardless of what the future consequences are because I won't be alive. Truly despicable.

I would love to see the development of alternative energy sources, so we can keep our beautiful nation clean for us and our future generations.

Rep for that one. I agree entirely. The supporters of this, and of anything harmful to the nation, have a greedy capitalist mindset, bent upon making money, instead of considering what is best for the nation.

Well I am a firm supporter of nuclear energy, i've been even thinking about doing a degree in Nuclear engineering and yet I opose capitalism, some people do not understand how the nuclear energy works. There's also a new type of power plants on the horizon, the Nuclear fussion plants which are able to create energy in the same way as the sun does in its core, using virtually endless resource... most common type of chemical element in the universe the Hydrogen found in sea's and ocean's.

WodzuUK wrote:

Godfaesten wrote:

Arbeiter88 wrote:I despise nuclear energy. It is dirty, dangerous, and there is simply no where to put the waste. I think ardent supporters of nuclear energy have a very greedy capitalist mindset. Make as much money as I can in this life, reguardless of what the future consequences are because I won't be alive. Truly despicable.

I would love to see the development of alternative energy sources, so we can keep our beautiful nation clean for us and our future generations.

Rep for that one. I agree entirely. The supporters of this, and of anything harmful to the nation, have a greedy capitalist mindset, bent upon making money, instead of considering what is best for the nation.

Well I am a firm supporter of nuclear energy, i've been even thinking about doing a degree in Nuclear engineering and yet I opose capitalism, some people do not understand how the nuclear energy works. There's also a new type of power plants on the horizon, the Nuclear fussion plants which are able to create energy in the same way as the sun does in its core, using virtually endless resource... most common type of chemical element in the universe the Hydrogen found in sea's and ocean's.

What is the best thing to do with the spent fuel rods?

Arbeiter88 wrote:What is the best thing to do with the spent fuel rods?

Well right now we can only keep creating bunkers where these rods can be stored, but some countires are already developing technology which will enable the reactors to reuse these rods

Well right now we can only keep creating bunkers where these rods can be stored, but some countires are already developing technology which will enable the reactors to reuse these rods

This is my main problem with nuclear power. There is no where to put the waste, only pile up radioactive waste in spots where hopefully no one will come in contact. I think it is a horrible way to trash the planet; however, if what you say is true and a technology is developed to reuse the fuel rods that would be a great achievement.

It would make me more sympathetic to nuclear, but the fact is nuclear energy is still dangerous and dirty. Take for example, the men who gave up their lives to try and clean up the reactors at Fukushima. Was it really worth those men losing their lives? This is only one example. I would still love to see the development of cleaner, safer, alternative energy sources.

Arbeiter88 wrote:

Well right now we can only keep creating bunkers where these rods can be stored, but some countires are already developing technology which will enable the reactors to reuse these rods

This is my main problem with nuclear power. There is no where to put the waste, only pile up radioactive waste in spots where hopefully no one will come in contact. I think it is a horrible way to trash the planet; however, if what you say is true and a technology is developed to reuse the fuel rods that would be a great achievement.

It would make me more sympathetic to nuclear, but the fact is nuclear energy is still dangerous and dirty. Take for example, the men who gave up their lives to try and clean up the reactors at Fukushima. Was it really worth those men losing their lives? This is only one example. I would still love to see the development of cleaner, safer, alternative energy sources.

Yes, what do you guys think so far is our best prospect for safe, clean, renewable energy?

Solar panels are by far the best source of energy, but they need constant maintenance and they cost quite a lot. We should continue to develop this technology and make it more widely available so in future each household will have its own source of energy. The government would only employ teams of technicians which would go around neighbourhoods checking the state of the solar panels.

WodzuUK wrote:Solar panels are by far the best source of energy, but they need constant maintenance and they cost quite a lot. We should continue to develop this technology and make it more widely available so in future each household will have its own source of energy. The government would only employ teams of technicians which would go around neighbourhoods checking the state of the solar panels.

Solar energy is a great alternative. If each and every family home could be fitted with panels and use their own energy in the future that would be absolutely great. Though, lets not forget discarded solar panels are also a form of hazardous waste.

I personally think we should invest more in Geo-Thermal. Most of the hot spots are in the west coast, but you can find them anywhere along "tectonic hot spots" you just have to do the drilling. It is a very clean way to get energy, as the water is naturally heated and it is usually pumped back into the ground to be used.

Arbeiter88 wrote:

WodzuUK wrote:Solar panels are by far the best source of energy, but they need constant maintenance and they cost quite a lot. We should continue to develop this technology and make it more widely available so in future each household will have its own source of energy. The government would only employ teams of technicians which would go around neighbourhoods checking the state of the solar panels.

Solar energy is a great alternative. If each and every family home could be fitted with panels and use their own energy in the future that would be absolutely great. Though, lets not forget discarded solar panels are also a form of hazardous waste.

I personally think we should invest more in Geo-Thermal. Most of the hot spots are in the west coast, but you can find them anywhere along "tectonic hot spots" you just have to do the drilling. It is a very clean way to get energy, as the water is naturally heated and it is usually pumped back into the ground to be used.

I agree but unfortunately Europe lays hundreds of miles from the nearest tectonic hot spots