[p2p-research] Fwd: [Open Manufacturing] Addressing Post-Scarcity Pitfalls

[Stan Rhodes]

Roberto, I appreciate that you emailed Michel privately to suggest this, but
since he decided to share, I would like to respond, see below.  Thank you
for reading some of the material I linked.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Roberto Verzola <rverzola at gn.apc.org>
> Date: Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [p2p-research] [Open Manufacturing] Addressing
> Post-Scarcity Pitfalls
> To: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
>
>
> I am just wondering if Stan Rhodes was talking tongue in cheek,
> pulling your leg, or what. The IFR links he provided say that
> the IFR program was discontinued in fifteen years ago in 1994!
> How can this be "good technology that has been around for
> decades"?
>

No, I'm not pulling any legs.  The program was discontinued, but as of now,
2009, the technology has been around for decades.  An IFR is buildable right
now with current know-how.  Plenty of other types are buildable too, the IFR
just happens to have a lot of preferable technology for safety,
reprocessing, and power generation.  However, I'm not a buff of nuclear
reactor types, so I'm willing to push it off the table, because the argument
for nuclear replacing fossil fuels remains essentially the same.


>
> He seems to deny that the nuclear industry is subsidized. Many
> countries who went nuclear did so mainly for military reasons --
> where cost was a secondary consideration. Thus a significant
> portion of the cost of R&D, fuel processing, etc. were
> subsidized by governments, sparing the civilian nuclear industry
> from carrying the full burden of these costs.
>

I don't deny it's subsidized.  Do you deny that the rest of the energy
sector is subsidized?  First, all industries are subsidized by health costs,
tax breaks, and so on that the government kindly bears for them--with our
tax dollars.  Second, most research in new technologies is subsidized by
governments through research programs, whether it be biodiesel, solar,
nuclear, or even "clean coal."  If you want to break down the economics of
energy, you have to look at the full map of externalities, and the use of
subsidies across the board to make a fair comparison.  Reprocessing cost is
a concern, for sure, and countries using nuclear want to lower that cost,
and are backing that want with R&D dollars.


>
> Remember that photovoltaic cells (as well as charge controllers)
> are made from silicon, the same semiconductor material used in
> the electronics industry. As demand goes up, you can expect the
> costs to further go down dramatically. With the entry of China
> into PV production, this may happen sooner than we think.
>

And the entry of China into PV and more silicon is a horrible tragedy,
because China's increasing production in the typical way: scorched earth
industrial manufacturing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

China needs lot of power to process all that silicon, and we know where
they're going to get almost all of it: coal.  If they were using nuclear,
I'd hardly feel safe either, but global damage from coal emissions is worse
than localized nuclear waste.  China doesn't need better technology as much
as real democracy.

Current solar can't compete with fossil fuels, and it's doubtful PV will
ever be able to.  The capacity of PV is crap.  It's not in the same league
with wind, which is also crap, but can generate much more.  Neither touches
nuclear.  Please read this analysis which, in between being rather snarky,
is well-sourced:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/6/547228/-Life-Cycle-Analysis-of-Solar-(And-Wind)-Power-in-Switzerland

-- Stan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090612/d8fbde1e/attachment.html>