The Myth of the European "Nuclear Renaissance"

[kristopher]

The Myth of the European "Nuclear Renaissance"

UK EXPERT: U.S. IS NOT LOSING INTERNATIONAL “RACE” ON NUCLEAR POWER WITH FRANCE AND OTHER NATIONS

No “Nuclear Renaissance” on the Continent: French, Finnish, and U.K. Experiences Hold Little Relevance for U.S. Other Than As Cautionary Tales; Copying France “Would Require Nationalization of U.S. Electric Utilities.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.///May 20, 2009///Lobbyists and utility company officials who claim that the United States is missing out on a so-called “Nuclear Renaissance” have their facts wrong about what is going on in Europe with nuclear reactors, according to University of Greenwich Professor of Energy Studies Stephen Thomas.

The U.K. energy expert said that, not only is nuclear power in France, Finland, Great Britain and now plagued with problems, but almost nothing that is positive about the experiences in those nations would translate to the United States. Thomas is the author of “Areva and EDF: Business Prospects and Risks in Nuclear Energy” (March 2009) and the co-author of “The Financial Crisis and Nuclear Power” (February 2009).

Thomas said: “We’ve been waiting in vain on a ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ in Europe since the early 1990s. Even before the recent collapse in energy prices and the financial downturn, it was clear that all of the talk of a new resurgence in the prospects for nuclear reactors was just that: talk. It is for this reason that I find it so odd that the case for more nuclear power is being built in the United States on an entirely mythical notion of some kind of international ‘race’ that the U.S. supposedly is losing. In reality, the nuclear power industry in Europe is in the midst of the same kind regulatory and financial uncertainty that makes the future of the industry murky at best in this nation.”

The University of Greenwich Professor added...

http://www.psr.org/safe-energy/the-myth-of-the-european.html

[Vincardog]

1. Good kick ANOTHER lie in the teeth

[Demeter]

2. NO nukes are Good Nukes

in both meanings of the phrase.

[NickB79]

3. "Copying France “Would Require Nationalization of U.S. Electric Utilities.”"

And nationalization is a bad thing why exactly?

[kristopher]

4. I don't know...

Why do you think giving corporate welfare to endlessly subsidize yet another arm of the military-industrial complex is a good thing?

You do know what the military-industrial complex is, right?

[NickB79]

5. Damn France, epicenter of the military-industrial complex!

Always looking for ways to rule the world, those dastardly French!

BTW, you still haven't answered my question: why would it be a bad thing to nationalize the US electrical utilities? The private sector hasn't exactly done a bang-up job of lifting the US electrical grid out of the mid-20th century.

[kristopher]

6. How you can do a 180 degree turn that suddenly without serious injury is incredible.

Literally "not" credible.

You wrote:

""Copying France “Would Require Nationalization of U.S. Electric Utilities.”
And nationalization is a bad thing why exactly?"

So your question clearly is about the US.

I replied:

"Why do you think giving corporate welfare to endlessly subsidize yet another arm of the military-industrial complex is a good thing? You do know what the military-industrial complex is, right?"

Obviously a reference to Ike's warning about the emerging United States version of fascism as he retired. The commercial nuclear industry is an undeniable part of that "complex" of militarily derived technologies and "industries".

To which you respond:

Damn France, epicenter of the military-industrial complex
Always looking for ways to rule the world, those dastardly French!

BTW, you still haven't answered my question: why would it be a bad thing to nationalize the US electrical utilities? The private sector hasn't exactly done a bang-up job of lifting the US electrical grid out of the mid-20th century.

Where you make the NOT CREDIBLE attempt to pretend the MIC reference applies to France.

So to be clear just for little ol' itty bitty you:

"Why do *you* think giving corporate welfare to endlessly subsidize yet another arm of the military-industrial complex is a good thing? You do know what the military-industrial complex is, right?"

Hint - engage brain before fingers.

[NickB79]

11. Alright, so you don't want the US MIC to gain control of the US civilian nuclear industry

Through the process of nationalizing the US electrical grid.

The US military already has 5000 nuclear warheads of various yields.

What military advantage would the US military industrial complex gain from control of 100 civilian nuclear reactors that it doesn't already have? What do you worry would happen if the US MIC had more access to the US electrical grid?

[kristopher]

12. You really don't have any idea of what the military *INDUSTRIAL* complex is, do you?

Nuclear power is an integral part of what Ike was warning of.

Might I gently suggest some readings on the history of fascism? Not the stuff that dwells on the red herring of Hitler, but the historical materials that trace the link between governments, large scale resource hungry industries, and the expansion/use of military might as a tool of policy and economics?

[NickB79]

13. I indeed know what the MIC is

And as I pointed out, it has already created tens of thousands of nuclear weapons over the past 6 decades here in the US, without nationalization of the US electrical grid.

My question for you is, what would the MIC gain from control of civilian nuclear reactors, when they already have the means to create all the nuclear weapons they want? Are you concerned that the US military is a nuclear weapons proliferation risk?

[kristopher]

15. The content of your question means you do not understand the MIC concept.

Are you able to parse the idea that "military" and "industry" are different realms, right? If you apply that to your question you may see where the deficiency in your question is manifesting itself.

Is it possible that you experienced some sort of whiplash injury recently that caused an interruption of blood flow to the brain or something. I mean, those 180 degree reversals at the speed you make them has to result in some serious lateral G-forces.

[Nihil]

19. Question 1 that you've dodged:

> what would the MIC gain from control of civilian nuclear reactors

And, to put a point on the question:

What would the MIC gain from control of civilian nuclear reactors
that it does not already have?

[NickB79]

23. Someone on this thread doesn't know what the MIC is

And from your evasiveness to answer a simple question, I'm pretty sure it isn't me :rofl:

[kristopher]

24. I am going to start a thread specifically about this discussion - stay tuned.

[NickB79]

32. So, how's that thread you promised to work on going?

My popcorn's getting all cold and stale.....

[GliderGuider]

14. So does MIC = Corporatocracy?

The classical usage of MIC requires a military component:

Military–industrial complex (MIC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and the industrial sector that supports them. These relationships include political approval for research, development, production, use, and support for military training, weapons, equipment, and facilities within the national defense and security policy. It is a type of iron triangle.

I think what you're referring to is the corporatocracy, the oligarchy, the plutocracy, the American modernization project for fascism. I don't see how nuclear power is essential to that project. They're doing just fine as it is, even with the moribund state of current American nuclear infrastructure.

[kristopher]

16. What you "think" I'm referring to is incorrect.

I meant the military industrial complex.

[GliderGuider]

17. In that case

Given that the three arms of the MIC are the military, the corporations and the government, and assuming that the iron triangle is already closed, then moving the ownership of an asset from one arm (the corporations, through free market ownership) to another (the government, through nationalization) makes no difference whatever to its "real" ownership. In both cases the asset is owned by the MIC, and the military has all the access it needs.

If the government was not bought and paid for, then nationalization would give the citizens control of the industry through their elected representatives. And if it the government is already bought and paid for by the corporations, why on earth would nationalizing the industry put the industry any more into the hands of the MIC than it is right now?

When it comes to keeping power (nuclear or political) out of the hands of the MIC, I think that horse has already left the barn.

[kristopher]

18. Is this an act on your part?

Seriously, you find a single phrase (iron triangle), misconstrue its significance and then built a house of cards on the wisp of your imaginings...

[Nihil]

20. Question 2 that you've dodged:

> If the government was not bought and paid for, then nationalization would give the
> citizens control of the industry through their elected representatives. And if it
> the government is already bought and paid for by the corporations, why on earth
> would nationalizing the industry put the industry any more into the hands of the
> MIC than it is right now?

Again, to clarify:
Why would nationalizing the industry put the industry any more into the hands
of the MIC than it is right now?

[GliderGuider]

21. No.

Is your coyness about answering direct questions an act on your part? Or are you just being a kusipää?

Siirry vittuun,
GG

[DrGregory]

28. Reminds me...

Seriously, you find a single phrase (iron triangle), misconstrue its significance and then built a house of cards on the wisp of your imaginings...
-------------------------------------

Kind of reminds me of your "understanding" of science....

Dr. Greg

[NobleCynic]

8. To be fair, France is 4th in arms exports

Behind only the US, Russia, and Germany. :)

Nationalization of the power grid may be necessary though, given the current failure of this quasi capitalist regulatory mess we currently have in maintaining and improving infrastructure.

[kristopher]

9. Our grid isn't a "failure"

The call for nationalizing the grid is frankly on policy level with the types of solutions offered by teabaggers. I'd expect better from you.

[DrGregory]

26. Which has what to do with the price of tea in China?

To be fair, France is 4th in arms exports
-------------------------------------------

Why is this AT ALL pertinent to a discussion
about nuclear power.

Someone labels nuclear power as "military industrial"
when it really isn't, and now we are looking at the
rank order of arms exports???

To what purpose????

Dr. Greg

[Nederland]

7. Another Strawman Argument?

You are looking at the wrong continent. The real "Nuclear Renaissance" is happening in Asia--India, China, Korea, etc.

[kristopher]

10. ROFLMAO - he makes a strawman while hurling accusations of "Strawman"

Is this the new meme of the commercial nuclear power tentacle of the military-industrial complex? We need to move to totalitarian control of the economy to meet our energy needs?

Somehow I think renewables can provide a slightly better alternative on all fronts including this one..


Seriously - ROFLMAO at the pathetic desperation...

[Nederland]

22. Poor little feller hasn't got a clue

[DrGregory]

25. AMEN!!! Brother AMEN!!!

[DrGregory]

27. Yes - sure.

A reference to Physicians for Social Responsibility???

Give me a BREAK!!!

As if they know something about nuclear power and
nuclear weapons.

Caldicott still "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that
a single kilogram of Pu-239 dispersed uniformly
around the world will kill all life on the planet.

In actuality, the amount of Pu-239 dispersed into
the environment by the years of atmospheric testing
is several metric tons, or several THOUSAND times
the amount she "thinks" will kill all life.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

29. Another strawman?

You wrote, "Caldicott still "thinks" ( term used loosely ) that a single kilogram of Pu-239 dispersed uniformly around the world will kill all life on the planet."

What she is quoted as saying is: " is so toxic that less than one-millionth of a gram, an invisible particle, is a carcinogenic dose," emphasized Dr. Helen Caldicott, president emeritus of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "One pound, if uniformly distributed, could hypothetically induce lung cancer in every person on Earth."

Now, why don't you try to do it the way real scientists do it and refute her remark with evidence that shows the theoretical basis of her hypothetical is false. To do that you will have t present data on the "carcinogenic dose" and then find the basis of her definition of "evenly distributed" and how that distribution is related to the idea of "every person on Earth."

I honestly don't know ANY REAL SCIENTIST that prefers a strawman when they have the facts on their side...

[DrGregory]

30. None of your diversions...

What she is quoted as saying is: " is so toxic that less than one-millionth of a gram, an invisible particle, is a carcinogenic dose," emphasized Dr. Helen Caldicott, president emeritus of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "One pound, if uniformly distributed, could hypothetically induce lung cancer in every person on Earth."
----------------------------------------

NO - I'm not playing that game where you give some nebulous claim by Caldicott.

NO - I heard her say on my local talk radio station in an interview that
a single kilogram ( not pound ) if uniformly distributed would kill all
life on Earth. From:

http://www.chemistryexplained.com/Pl-Pr/Plutonium.html

"Plutonium is the transuranium element that is most abundant in the environment, due to the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons during the 1950s and 1960s that deposited approximately 4.2 tons of plutonium in the environment. Most of this plutonium is in the soil, in which it has no discernable effects."

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

31. So we have her direct quote or your word that you heard something on the radio...

that is, as they say, an easy choice.