Dr Peter Hodgson explains.
Furthermore, nuclear power is the core around which wind, wave, solar and the rest need to be built, all the while in order to secure high-wage, high-skilled, high-status jobs for the working class, and independence from Arab oil and Russian gas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
but it is not much more renewable than our present arrangements, requires mega capital investment and uranium supplies (if adopted globally) would be around 30 years.
ReplyDeleteSurely better to put the investment into solar/wind/certain biofuels as well as moving away from so-called 'free trade' which externalises all pollution/transport costs?
I'm all for abandoning "free" trade, but biofuels take food from the world's poor, and wind, wave and solar generate nowhere near enough electricity while employing hardly anybody.
ReplyDeleteLike clean coal technology (which, of course, does provide plenty of employment), they have a place. But nuclear is the core.
Surely there's no point employing people for the sake of it though, (far better to re-allocate leisure time and consider real wealth.) Nuclear is expensive, dangerous, unsustainable and a short term panacea given what we know about uranium supplies. It is also of course. Closely linked to nuclear weapon development so this will become harder to police too. Agree about biofuels at the moment, but they simply highlight that part of the answer is less consumption-something that won't be happening any time soon. Peak oil may dictate these choices for us, though of course for the starving, it will be too late.
ReplyDelete"Surely there's no point employing people for the sake of it though, (far better to re-allocate leisure time and consider real wealth.)"
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of people with quite enough "leisure time" already, but no "real wealth".
"Nuclear is expensive, dangerous, unsustainable"
Decades out of date, if ever true.
"Closely linked to nuclear weapon development"
Why? It has been, but it certainly needn't necessarily be.
sorry I enjoy your blog but you're well wrong here. Even Bush sees the links between nuclear materials for civilian and military purposes.
ReplyDeleteWe could pay people to build pyramids but it would add little 'real wealth' to the country. Similarly, solar and wind, if they do use less labour, which I doubt overall, need not make us poorer.
If we shared out all jobs there need be anyone on benefits and we could all work fewer hours
By the way, do you have a full time job? Or too much 'leisure time'?
It all adds up to full-time (and then some). Very modern...
ReplyDeleteHow many countries have, or would like, nuclear power? And how many of those have, or would like, nuclear weapons? The science is obviously related. But the application need not be at all.
apologies, last post should have read 'need not.'
ReplyDeleteIf we were to power our world as presently, uranium would be gone within 20-30 years, hardly seems worth the massive capital investment it would require. This could instead go into more sustainable and hence more long run productive sources.
As I said, all academic really when you consider peak oil..
It couldn't be less academic, precisely because of peak oil.
ReplyDelete