Okay so I was scrolling through the PSL’s info page, and it is stated that they are to denuclearize the power grid. Why is this? I was under the impression that Nuclear Energy is the much more sustainable and frankly realistic source of power–even without Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium based ones.
Im finding it most orgs tend to stay away from Nuclear energy due to fear mongering from fossil fuel industries; Thus its stain in the imperial core, reaching from liberals to western "leftists". But I am surprised the PSL, a radical organization, is anti-nuclear.
FYI this isn't a deal breaker or anything--they seem to be taking the lead for vanguard party--just was curious of the stance on nuclear energy.
I had a chance to hear Tina Landis, the author of the PSL’s Climate Solutions Beyond Capitalism book, speak and I think it’s a bit more nuanced than “it’s astroturfed”. There is already massive energy waste in the US’s production, and it’s being driven by capitalism.
It’s kinda late and I can’t remember specific stats (of course I let my friend borrow my book lol), but the intention would be to more efficiently use energy in this country. I really wish I remembered more information, but the breakdowns of how much energy Americans use compared to the rest of the world was some looney number.
The issue of what to do with nuclear waste was also something that was brought up. I’m not entirely sold on this, but given that the current solution to this is just bury it in the ground for thousands of years… I don’t think some level of skepticism is unwarranted. Okay, I found a video of a speech she gave! Go to the 26 minute mark. It talks about issues with nuclear.
Also, in other talks I had with comrades, they talked about there are studies that show the world would be able to make a complete shift to renewables by like 2030 something (this is not including nuclear, she explains it better in the video) I think the video talks about the 2030 thing, but another issue that was raised to me about it was the imperial history of the US, especially with how nuclear weapons are concerned. Given the unnatural energy need that capitalism creates, how costly and timely it would be to build reactors, how many reactors we would realistically need to cover a lot of our energy expenses, the issue of waste, etc., the party is opposed to nuclear energy.
I really would recommend hearing what she has to say. I’m like half asleep, but my brief rambling doesn’t do her book the full justice!
I have looked into all of these points as well, although it has been a few years since I really looked at these issues in depth.
Regardless of the current state of nuclear power opposition, the original question I understood was about the origins of this opposition. Framing it that way I did come to the conclusion that the beginning of mainstream nuclear power opposition was indeed astroturfed by fossil fuel interests. Which other well funded interest group of the 1960s and 1970s would be against the hopeful idea of plentiful electricity too cheap to meter? Even today though we see plenty of anti-nuclear power activists getting funding from the fossil fuel industries.
Energy waste is not an unrelated issue, and one that needs to be solved, but it doesn’t change the fact that we need a certain amount of electricity and heat energy, and that amount will only grow as more and more people are lifted out of poverty and the effects of climate change increase.
I have personally come to the conclusion that the nuclear waste issue has technical solutions. It’s the socio-economic solutions which are outstanding. It’s possible that these cannot be solved under a capitalist paradigm, but then neither can any of our socio-economic problems. Some of the proposed technical solutions have also been canned by fossil fuel interests.
Just based on a raw materials and available labour force perspective, I don’t see how our energy needs can be covered by renewables alone. Some analyses make me think it may be impossible given current renewable technology. A breakthrough renewable energy technology may yet come, but until then I just don’t see how we can make a 100% transition on any timeline, let alone less than a decade. We also have to take cost into consideration. Germany for example has spent over half a trillion euro on their “Energiewende,” and all they have to show for it is increased GHG emissions and a less stable electric grid. China is now building out renewable infrastructure on an unbelievable scale, but they’re also building fission reactors and investing heavily in fusion technology.
A lot of the cost and timeline issues nuclear energy faces are entirely artificial as well. I’m not saying that we should cut safety regulations, far from it, but there are definitely ways reactors can be made efficiently if we want to. We could not decommission perfectly functional existing reactors as a start. We need to be funding research and development and new construction so the knowledge of how to do these things isn’t lost.
I’ll take a look at the video when I can.