I've been interested in new nukes for some time and at one time was ready to 
hop on the thorium bandwagon.  Frankly, my loss of interest has less to do with 
one big problem for a hedgehog (waste, steam explosions) than with the 
accumulation of many smaller problems for foxes, most of them stemming from 
what I see as the radical incapacity of capitalism to grapple with the social 
scope of the associated issues.

>From what I can tell, several proposed new reactor designs could reduce the 
>waste-storage toxicity problem to the scale of a hundred or a few hundred 
>years rather than many thousands.  Other problems, eg the management of molten 
>salt corrosiveness over decades and the possibility of eg massive accidental 
>releases of gamma radiation as a result of this in certain types of thorium 
>MSRs (David Walters help me out on this!) are lost in the fog of contending 
>promotions.

It would be entirely reasonable, given the alternatives, for humanity to 
embrace responsibility for greatly reduced quantities of nuclear waste over a 
hundred or a few hundred years--it would require less of a sustained effort 
than the maintenance of Notre Dame Cathedral or the Aya Sofia Mosque, let alone 
the Pantheon.  Surely a worldwide revolution  would create conditions that 
would allow us to assume that responsibility.

The Hanford and other bogeyman nuclear pollution sites mentioned here are 
relict of the US weapons program and constitute essentially a different 
workstream entirely from nuclear power station waste, as David Walters points 
out.  This is not to minimize the problem they present--as does medical nuclear 
waste, also unrelated to power generation--but to put it in its place in the 
context of nuclear power generation as a climate-change mitigation strategy.

The reality IMO is simply that we on the left do not possess adequate and 
trustworthy information on any of the proposed "solutions"--from Terra Power to 
ThorCon--because AFAIK none of those solutions has actually been built, and 
because the voices describing them are not responsible, objective scientific 
voices but the voices of businesspeople trying to sell "entrepreneurial" 
free-market products, most of which currently remain vaporware. Even in the 
case of the IMO undeniably brilliant Kirk Sorensen, still lless the lesser 
lights of Martingale, Inc.--what we are hearing is the voice of money 
talking--hence an alienated and completely unreliable discourse based on a 
model of production that cannot succeed at the level of social criticality 
required.

Nuclear anything is difficult to understand and probably impossible to grasp in 
its full complexity unless one is a nuclear scientist or engineer.  It's a fact 
that almost anything involving engineering design is a lot harder for the 
Hueys, Deweys, and Louies of the gutbucket left to grasp (myself included)--I 
personally fade out even when being lectured on the complexities of carburetors 
or the engineering required to produce really effective steam locomotives--but 
"nuclear" takes this to unimaginable heights.

It's really too bad that apparently nobody of Haldane's caliber exists today to 
organize a standards-based left inquiry into these matters.  Short of an 
international Marxist task force of qualified engineers and scientists--and who 
could verify their bona fides anyway?--there does not appear to be a way 
forward here.  But IMO that is greatly to be regretted. Can we look to China? I 
doubt it.

I suspect that a lot of nuclear normal scientists and engineers have inherited 
as a badge of pride the feeling that they have become Kali, the Destroyer of 
Worlds, without experiencing Oppenheimer's moral revulsion to that insight.  To 
such people, perhaps the rest of us are mere arselings  who cannot handle the 
truth.  Many of them, I suspect, will say anything to silence criticism or 
delude critics.  As long as this obstacle exists, if it does, no progress can 
be made on new nukes even if there does turn out to be a feasible way forward.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#1529): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/1529
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/76806020/21656
-=-=-
                     POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy  
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to