Heiko Recktenwald on Sun, 7 Nov 2021 00:33:30 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Energy Dilemma

Dear all,

Am 06/11/21 um 16:18 schrieb mp:
> On 06/11/2021 14:39, Heiko Recktenwald wrote:
>> Why dont you mention the nuclear option? Why is it taboo? Some people
>> say that it is too expensiv, but the energy is more or less CO2 free.
> I guess there is a somewhat slightly toxic substance involved with a
> half-time beyond human scale, for which a carbon-intensive mining
> industry - involving displacement of people - is also required, as far
> as I know, but then I haven't really done serious investigations of
> nuclear power since I was 14 in a school project back in the 1980s, so
> please enlighten me!

As a schoolboy in the early 70s I had a very good teacher and was
invited by Philips to an international summit for schoolchildren. Jeught
and Wetenshap. What would you do if you were an Arab? We were in a small
experimental nuclear reactor too. When I wrote a legal paper on havoc in
the chemical industry some years later with unknown risks as well and a
much higher probability I had the impression that the discussions about
nuclear energy were just a destraction. Why Plogoff? Carbon footprint of
what? Energy for enrichment? For the manufacturing of centrifuges?

The basic problem of everything that has to do with nuclear energy is a
lack of information and secrecy. This may be the reason for any taboo as
well. But the story is beautifull. German engineers in Russia after the
war. Most returned to the GDR but one of them went to Degussa in the
West and got a patent for their slightly improved centrifuge. The use of
this patent went into the treaty of Amelo of 1970 and into a company
called Urenco. Ask Google for it. The Netherlands, the UK and Germany. A
poor student from Pakistan did translade the patent into English. A job
from the blackboard of the Rheinisch Westphaelische Technische
University of Aachen.

> "....There have been nearly three hundred papers on the carbon footprint
> of nuclear power in scientific journals and reports in recent years. Two
> peer-reviewed papers have critically assessed the literature in the way
> Nugent and Sovacool compared renewable LCAs.

In Germany the nuclear plants that they want to close after 2022 are
allready there. Their big carbon footprint did allready happen. And they
would not create problems that we dont have anyway. Maybe some more
waste. Does this justify the trashing of a lot of at least more or less
CO2 free beautifull energy? That would allow you to close a lot of more
dirty fossil plants earlier.

And more enlightment against the taboo: Here is the CIA of 1957 on
German scientists in Russia after the war:
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/zippe.pdf . Named after the
businessman. Germany promised not to own nuclear bombs after the
reunification but it still loves the treaty of Amelo. There is also an
Urenco factory in the US. Germany does not need a nuclear plant for a
nuclear bomb. This is shure. Both have nothing in common. Except the
Uranium in the ground. In Germany and many other places around the
world. And notice against all prejudices: the possession and use of
nukes is basically legal, https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/95 .

Best, H.

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: