Nuclear v.s. Solar
Someone finally wrote a comment to me. Thank you.
The question was asked whether or not I was a real capitalist, since I am advocating solar forms of energy rather than nuclear. So, I had better respond.
First, I would consider myself more a philosopher than anything else. I own a few things that are legitimately capital, but my primary source of income is not from capital ownership, which I point out from time to time in my posts. Still, I advocate for a Capitalist Party, but on pure principals of politics, especially after doing extensive reading on the founding principles of our country, something I continue to do - I don't know everything... yet. I have also read extensively on fundamental economic principles, which I find to be increasingly absent in social discourse.
So, my opinion on energy is more based upon a republican model, where there is a balance of power between the classes - the purpose of my advocating for a Capitalist party (retained profits being well under one third of the total social product. Less even than social security - the democratic classes fraction.). With the large, few, centrallized and powerful sources of energy, we are more of an oligarchy than a republic. With solar forms, the manufacture of the devices is still capitalist based, but the ownership of the utility is more individually based and diffuse. It decentrallizes the power itself and keeps government from grabbing for it. With greater liberty comes greater prosperity and more opportunity for capital investment.
On the price side, nuclear power is not as cheap as it may appear. First there is the long term cost of dealing with the waste - an issue that could be resolved if the government would help finance the research and development of safer and more certain technologies for breeder style reactors, which could actually burn 98% of what is now classified as radioactive waste. I mean, robotics has come a long way since the 1950s. Without this sort of social investment, there is a long term financial responsibility for securing the waste, a responsibility that needs to be faithfully attended to for 200,000 years. Since the breeder research is capital and the guarding waste cost labor, I am more inclined to support the short term research cost over the long. Under this condition I would support nuclear power. Also the remaining 2% of the spent waste of a breeder reactor is much less radioactive and incapable of being used to make weapons. Even dirty bombs are much less practical with this sort of waste.
The next cost is the construction of new reactors, which the government covered the first time, and why nuclear power is considered 'cheap' today. In Mexico, I believe it was Westinghouse, who built them a nuclear reactor, sited on a fault line, which shifted and split one of the walls - before it was commissioned. They rebuilt the reactor about three times at a huge cost to the Mexican government. Will that sort of thing happen here?
Then, there is the security threat. How much does it cost us to protect each and every one of our nuclear reactors from guerrila attacks. If a nuclear reactor in the Gulf area somehow exploded, it would cover the entire Eastern half of the U.S. with the radioactive waste, including the great lakes, which provide fresh water to some 20 million people. Even a leak along one of the lake shore reactors could cause severe casualities due to radiation. So there is that cost to government for a high level of security which ultimately comes out of the profits of capital, as all taxes do.
If all the government subsidies and hence taxes were eliminated, the overall cost for solar is probably more attractive. In addition, there are multiple forms of renewable energy that can be tapped into, which give rise to a more popular capitalist class. Investment into finding increasingly individualized sources of energy harmonizes the capitalist class with the democratic class, though the process of production keeps them distinct entities. It is this harmonization between the classes, rather than factionalist conflict between them that leads to wealth and prosperity.
Also, when the democratic class and capitalist class are allies - to some extent, the government class is no longer capable of imposing its will on us both. That is the goal of a republic.
k?
The question was asked whether or not I was a real capitalist, since I am advocating solar forms of energy rather than nuclear. So, I had better respond.
First, I would consider myself more a philosopher than anything else. I own a few things that are legitimately capital, but my primary source of income is not from capital ownership, which I point out from time to time in my posts. Still, I advocate for a Capitalist Party, but on pure principals of politics, especially after doing extensive reading on the founding principles of our country, something I continue to do - I don't know everything... yet. I have also read extensively on fundamental economic principles, which I find to be increasingly absent in social discourse.
So, my opinion on energy is more based upon a republican model, where there is a balance of power between the classes - the purpose of my advocating for a Capitalist party (retained profits being well under one third of the total social product. Less even than social security - the democratic classes fraction.). With the large, few, centrallized and powerful sources of energy, we are more of an oligarchy than a republic. With solar forms, the manufacture of the devices is still capitalist based, but the ownership of the utility is more individually based and diffuse. It decentrallizes the power itself and keeps government from grabbing for it. With greater liberty comes greater prosperity and more opportunity for capital investment.
On the price side, nuclear power is not as cheap as it may appear. First there is the long term cost of dealing with the waste - an issue that could be resolved if the government would help finance the research and development of safer and more certain technologies for breeder style reactors, which could actually burn 98% of what is now classified as radioactive waste. I mean, robotics has come a long way since the 1950s. Without this sort of social investment, there is a long term financial responsibility for securing the waste, a responsibility that needs to be faithfully attended to for 200,000 years. Since the breeder research is capital and the guarding waste cost labor, I am more inclined to support the short term research cost over the long. Under this condition I would support nuclear power. Also the remaining 2% of the spent waste of a breeder reactor is much less radioactive and incapable of being used to make weapons. Even dirty bombs are much less practical with this sort of waste.
The next cost is the construction of new reactors, which the government covered the first time, and why nuclear power is considered 'cheap' today. In Mexico, I believe it was Westinghouse, who built them a nuclear reactor, sited on a fault line, which shifted and split one of the walls - before it was commissioned. They rebuilt the reactor about three times at a huge cost to the Mexican government. Will that sort of thing happen here?
Then, there is the security threat. How much does it cost us to protect each and every one of our nuclear reactors from guerrila attacks. If a nuclear reactor in the Gulf area somehow exploded, it would cover the entire Eastern half of the U.S. with the radioactive waste, including the great lakes, which provide fresh water to some 20 million people. Even a leak along one of the lake shore reactors could cause severe casualities due to radiation. So there is that cost to government for a high level of security which ultimately comes out of the profits of capital, as all taxes do.
If all the government subsidies and hence taxes were eliminated, the overall cost for solar is probably more attractive. In addition, there are multiple forms of renewable energy that can be tapped into, which give rise to a more popular capitalist class. Investment into finding increasingly individualized sources of energy harmonizes the capitalist class with the democratic class, though the process of production keeps them distinct entities. It is this harmonization between the classes, rather than factionalist conflict between them that leads to wealth and prosperity.
Also, when the democratic class and capitalist class are allies - to some extent, the government class is no longer capable of imposing its will on us both. That is the goal of a republic.
k?
posted by lou_srewlect | 1:46 PM
|
0 comments
