I'm afraid "our" option is to helplessly stand by and watch. "Our" here
refers both to conscious leftists and, more generally, for the mass of
humanity other than the 1%. And even individual members of the 1% are
helpless to affect policy, especially if, as has been suggested, it has to
be a policy joined in by China & the U.S. Capitalism differs from other
historical orders in that the relations of production are beyond the control
even of the rulers.

The immediate question, that is, is political, not technical. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Science for the People Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chandler Davis
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 4:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Is Nuclear Really our only option to address climate change???

Thanks, Charlie.  I don't know how David Wright --and some members of this
group as well-- can say nuclear "has to remain on the table".
Wright is perfectly clear about the reasons for getting out of nuclear as
fast as feasible: the risk (not only from fire & earthquake, but from all
sorts of malfunctions) is intolerable, and every kwh of power got from the
reactors is that much more spent fuel which will stay around for tens of
thousands of years rendering part of our finite planet uninhabitable,
unfarmable, and even damn near unminable.  This has been known since the
1950s, but the economics has been falsified, especially by the
Price-Anderson Act and successors.  What part of the fraud is conscious and
what part is just stupid wishful thinking on the part of the nuclear
advocates, is debatable; let's debate it; but let's not share in the


On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, Charles Schwartz wrote:

> I sent a copy of the latest Hansen paper to David Wright at the UCS, 
> asking his opinion. Here is his reply, which I think is quite
> interesting.------------
> Thanks for sending this, which I hadn't seen. I have sent it to our 
> energy experts to see what they make of it, since I am not an expert in
this area.
> My guess is that we would agree with much of what Hansen says about 
> the urgency of combatting emissions and on the need to cooperate with 
> China, and others, on this. Where we tend to disagree is our 
> assessment of the risks of scaling up nuclear power. UCS is neither 
> pro- nor anti-nuclear power. Our goal is to increase its safety and 
> security since it will be with us for the foreseeable future no matter 
> what else happens. We see a number of problems and potential problems 
> that we don't believe the industry or NRC are adequately addressing. 
> Until that changes, we are weary of increasing nuclear power, but 
> think it needs to continue to be considered to reduce global emissions.
> There have been two recent letters by scientists arguing for more 
> nuclear power, which you may have seen. Hansen was part of the first 
> letter. My response to the second letter is here:
>   It 
> really gives our take on both letters.
> By the way, if you haven't seen it, we just released a book on what 
> happened at Fukushima by our two technical experts:
> 412
> It's getting great reviews.
> -----
> Charlie
> On Feb 22, 2014, at 9:17 AM, Steve Nadel wrote:
>       I share the opposition to nuclear. However, I am looking to
>       build the strongest case against that position, as I think it
>       will more and more become the key debate within climate change
>       circles. So I welcome all comments & references.
> David - one scary part of Hansen?s analysis refers to your timeline 
> issues. If you look at the article, Hansen approvingly quotes the much 
> shorter timelines to build a nuclear plant in China. Of course, he 
> doesn?t explain where this magic shortened schedule comes from (as to 
> limits on popular ability to insure safety protocols are actually 
> observed during such mass projects) On Feb 22, 2014, at 8:55 AM, David 
> Schwartzman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Short answer: no, nuclear (whatever the generation) is not the only 
> viable solution to preventing even more dangerous climate change than 
> now witnessed.
> See our case at:
> Here is one critical reason, aside from many others:
> The time necessary to create nuclear power replacing existing energy 
> is on the order of decades, significantly longer than wind/solar with 
> equivalent capacity to supply energy. The longer a given level of 
> atmospheric CO2 remains, the greater the long-term greenhouse impact.
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Steve Nadel <[log in to unmask]> 
> wrote:
>       HI Everyone
> A comrade of mine in the local climate change group distributed the 
> following link.  More and more establishment scientists are pushing 
> this position, that a transition to nuclear reactors (specifically, 
> ?fast? or ?breeder?
> reactors) is the only viable solution to climate change.
> I would be most interested to people?s responses to this position, 
> especially if anyone has seen more detailed analytical responses.
> (Note, the reference to Jacobson, is to Mark Jacobson, a professor of 
> engineering at Stanford. He has produced several analyses, most public 
> in a recent Scientific American article, outlining plans for a 
> transition to water/wind/solar via utility scale projects, as an 
> alternative to a nuclear transition. He will be speaking at a planned 
> conference on opposition to  Fracking & other new unconventional 
> fossil fuel sources, we are planning for the SF Bay Area in May of 
> this year)
> Best to all
> Steve Nadel
> I am not enough of a scientist to take a position in this controversy. 
> In fact I find it challenging even to read Hanson's articles. I would 
> however love to hear Hanson and Jacobson debate this issue.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: James Hansen <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Friday, February 21, 2014
> Subject: Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power, and Galileo
> Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
> Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power, and Galileo A draft opinion piece, 
> Renewable Energy, Nuclear Power, and Galileo, is available here or on 
> my web site. Criticisms are welcome.
> ~Jim
> 21 February 2014
> [open.php?u=0ebaeb14fdbf5dc65289113c1&id=81bc7ab96d&e=34260d0459]