RE: [OPE] Power

From: Paul Cockshott (
Date: Thu Feb 14 2008 - 17:39:09 EST

Gerry you are recyycling emotive and irrational 1980s environmentalism in a 
epoch, where to do so is positively dangerous.

I put nuclear first, because it is the only currently proven and viable alternative
for large scale 24/7 electricity generation to coal and oil.

In the long term, once storage technologies have been developed, wind and solar
power will be viable alternatives. Whether they will be lower value ( ie lower labour
content ) alternatives is another matter. What is certain is that they are
not, at the current state of engineering viable alternatives for national base load.

We know from France that it is possible to run an electical generation system
reliably on predominantly nuclear power, it remains to be proven that this can
be done with non nuclear technologies. Bear in mind that if oil and natural gas
are no longer available for vehicles and for domestic heating, the level of
electrical generation capacity needed by each country is going to be of the order
of 2 to 3 times current consumption. It is not a matter of providing suplementary
power from wind, tide and sunshine, but of rebuilding a new generating base much
larger than the current one.

Bio fuels are as Castro points out, genocidal in their implications.

Paul Cockshott
Dept of Computing Science
University of Glasgow
+44 141 330 1629

-----Original Message-----
From: on behalf of Gerald Levy
Sent: Thu 2/14/2008 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [OPE] Power
[Paul C wrote:]
> Some transitional demands:
> 1. The need for nuclear reactors and almost certainly breeder 
> reactors

In solidarity, Jerry
ope mailing list

ope mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 00:00:03 EST