Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
of new energy sources and devices.4 One stream of euphoria has sprung from advocates of
perhaps best represented by the unflappable
optimists of nuclear power who, early on, promised to invent a magical fire
conventional energy,
(Weinberg, 1972) capable of meeting any level of energy demand inexhaustibly in a manner too
cheap to meter (Lewis Strauss, cited in the New York Times 1954, 1955 ).
In reply to
those who fear catastrophic accidents from the magical fire or the
proliferation of nuclear weapons, a new promise is made to realize
inherently safe reactors (Weinberg, 1985) that risk neither serious accident nor
intentionally harmful use of high-energy physics. Less grandiose, but no less optimistic, forecasts
can be heard from fossil fuel enthusiasts who, likewise, project more energy, at lower cost, and
with little ecological harm (see, e.g., Yergin and Stoppard, 2003). Skeptics of conventional
energy, eschewing involvement with dangerously scaled technologies and their ecological
consequences, find solace in sustainable energy alternatives that constitute a second euphoric
stream. Preferring to redirect attention to smaller, and supposedly more democratic, options,
green energy advocates conceive devices and systems that prefigure a revival of human scale
occasionally included thoughtful exploration of the broader contours of energy-environmentsociety relations. As early as 1934, Lewis Mumford (see also his two-volume Myth of the Machine,
1966; 1970) critiqued the industrial energy system for being a key source of social and ecological
alienation (1934: 196): The changes that were manifested in every department of Technics rested
for the most part on one central fact: the increase of energy. Size, speed, quantity, the
multiplication of machines, were all reflections of the new means of utilizing fuel and the
enlargement of the available stock of fuel itself. Power was dissociated from its natural human
and geographic limitations: from the caprices of the weather, from the irregularities that
definitely restrict the output of men and animals. By 1961, Mumford despaired that modernity had
retrogressed into a lifeharming dead end (1961: 263, 248): ...an orgy of uncontrolled production
and equally uncontrolled reproduction: machine fodder and cannon fodder: surplus values and
surplus populations... The dirty crowded houses, the dank airless courts and alleys, the bleak
pavements, the sulphurous atmosphere, the over-routinized and dehumanized factory, the drill
schools, the second-hand experiences, the starvation of the senses, the remoteness from nature
and animal activityhere are the enemies. The living organism demands a life-sustaining
manner of Mumfords work if a world measurably different from the present order is to be
organized. Interrogating modern energy assumptions, this chapter examines the social projects
of both conventional and sustainable energy as a beginning effort in this direction. The critique
explores the neglected issue of the political economy of energy, underscores the pattern of
democratic failure in the evolution of modern energy, and considers the discursive continuities
between the premises of conventional and sustainable energy futures. The Abundant Energy
Machine8 Proposals by its stakeholders to fix the modern energy system abound. Advocates
envision bigger, more expensive, and more complex machines to spur and sate an endlessly
increasing world energy demand. From clean coal to a revived nuclear energy strategy, such
developments promise a worldwide movement to a cleaner and more socially benign energy
regime that retains its modern ambitions of bigger, more, and better. Proponents even suggest
that we might have our cake and eat it too, promoting patterns of energy production,
distribution, and consumption consistent with an unconstrained ideology of quantification while
also banishing environmental threats and taming social risks that energy critics cite in their
challenges to the mainstream. Consistent with a program of ecological modernization, the
conventional energy regimes architects are now exploring new technologies and strategies that
offer what are regarded as permanent solutions to our energy troubles without harming our
ecological future or disturbing the goal of endless economic growth and its attendant social
relations.
Part 2 is Harms
We are in the midst of a global nuclear renaissance- corporate propaganda markets nuclear power as the
only solution to climate change to shut down alternative energy. Wasserman, MA, 16
(Harvey - journalist, http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/ny-times-pushes-nukes-while-claiming-renewables-fail-to-fight-climate-change/ ,
7-29)
get private liability insurance for them, and relies on the1957 Price-Anderson Act to protect them from liability
in a major catastrophe. The industry continually complains about subsidies to renewable energy but never
mentions this government protection program without which all reactors would close. 7. Not just nuke power but
Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada and many other industrial ventures indicate major battery
breakthroughs in storage is here today. 8. Porters NY Times piece correctly says
that the massive amounts of cheap, clean renewables flooding the grid in
Europe and parts of the U.S. are driving nuclear power plants into
bankruptcy. At least a dozen reactor shut downs have been announced in the U.S. since 2012 and
many more are on their way. In Japan 52 of the 54 reactors online before the Fukushima disaster are now closed.
article never mentions the word battery or the term rooftop solar. But these are the two key parts in the
green transition already very much in progress. So here is what the Times obviously cant bring itself to say:
Cheap solar panels on rooftops are now making the grid obsolete. The key bridging element of battery back-
were derailed. There are also serious legal barriers now in place to stop homeowners from putting solar shingles
and panels on their rooftops.
grid and its obsolete owners are at the core of the problem. So are the corporate media outlets like the New
York Times that try to hide that obvious reality.
the
nuclear industry and their party allies throughout the political
spectrum have been for a long time in a tight marriage that is
far too beneficial for them to split. Africa is currently the
continent where nuclear power plants are least present. Only
one such plant is present in South Africa, imposed by the
apartheid regime in the 1970s. It is located in Koeberg, 30km north of Cape Town, yet surrounded by the city's
ever-spreading suburbs, and was built by a French company. Like most nuclear power plants, it has
European nuclear power reactors to a so-called "stress test", and even then only on a voluntary basis. Apparently,
experienced serious problems and its reactors have had to be shut down several times, especially since 2005. Of course, the idea
is not totally unconceivable that there could have been more severe incidents before, and that in apartheid times the white
supremacist regime would not have made it a top priority to inform and protect the surrounding African people. In 2010, 91
members of staff were contaminated with Cobalt-58 dust in an incident that was said to be confined to the plant only. In view of
these facts and the recent developments, it should be clearer than ever that Africa must not follow the path to ultimate and lasting
nuclear destruction that European, North American and Asian leaders seem to be determined to continue to take. Indeed, Africa
may not only have the responsibility to save itself from this fate, but may also ultimately have the power to save the world from
some of this otherwise pre-programmed nuclear disaster. How? By refusing to let its vast nuclear resources be exploited. South
Africa's only nuclear power plant, In Koeberg, 30km north of Cape Town, was imposed by the apartheid regime in the 70s
with the richest natural resources, has vast nuclear materials in its soil. Almost every African country is currently being mined or
examined and prepared for nuclear exploitation. According to a recent report updated in February 2011 by the World Information
Service on Energy (WISE), an environmental activist amalgamation based in Amsterdam, China National Nuclear Group, being that
country's biggest nuclear power plant builder, signed a deal with the China-Africa Development Fund, a Chinese state-run
. French, Canadian,
British, Swiss, Japanese, Russian, Chinese, Australian and
other companies are mining uranium, or have signed contracts
to do so very soon with Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon,
Central African Republic, DRCongo, Gabon, Malawi, Mali, Chad,
South Africa, Tanzania, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra
Leone, Uganda, Zambia and other African countries.
institution, in 2010 to examine and exploit uranium resources throughout Africa
Increasingly, nation-states such as China, France, Russia, Britain and India are promoting the nuclear option: first, as the main large-scale solution
to developing economies, growing populations and increasing
demands for a consumer-led lifestyle, and secondly, to tend to
environmental concerns of global warming and climate
change.1Indias Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, speaking at a conference of atomic scientists in Delhi,
for instance, announced a hundredfold increase to470,000 megawatts of energy that could come from Indian
nuclear power stations by 2,050. He said, This will sharply reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will be a
major contribution to global efforts to combat climate change, adding that Asia was seeing a huge spurt in
nuclear plant building for these reasons (Ramesh2009). The Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster of March 2011
has, for the time being at least, dented some nation-states nuclear power programmes. However, in India, the
government has declared that it has commissioned further safety checks whilst continuing its nuclear
similar ends, Indias Union Minister of State for Environ-ment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, remarked, It is
With a subtle
sleight of hand,nuclear industries are able to promote
themselves as environmentally beneficial whilst continuing
business-as-usual at an expansive rate. Such global and national views
on climate change are threatening to monopo-lise the entire
environmentalist terrain where issues to do with uranium and thorium mining, the ecological costs of nuclear power plant
construction, maintenance, operation and decommissioning,
the release of water coolant and the transport and storage of
radioactive waste are held as subsidiary considerations to the
paradoxical that environmental-ists are against nuclear energy (Deshpande 2009).
threat of climate change. Basing much of my evidence in India, I note how the
conjunction of nuclear power and climate change has lodged
itself in the public imagination and is consequently in a powerful position,
creating a truth regime favoured both by the nuclear lobby and
those defenders of climate change who want more energy without
restructuration of market-influenced economies or changes in
consumerist lifestyle. The urgency of climate change discourses
further empowers what I call the nuclear state of exception
which, in turn, lends credence to the veracity of human-centric
global warming.
Although Giorgio Agambens (2005) work on the normalisation of exceptional state practice has
been much cited, it would appear that Robert Jungk anticipated some of his main axioms.
inevitable spread of tech-nological know-how through a range of international networks and the
effects of the US atoms for peace program in the 1950s led to a greater number of nations
constructing institutions for civilian nuclear power, a development that was later realised to
enable uranium enrichment for the manufacture of weapons .Because
of the
indeterminacy between atoms for peace and atoms for war, the
nuclear industries began to play a key part in several nations
security policies, both externally with reference to other states and also internally with
reference to objec-tors and suspected anti-national contingents. Jungk notes the
important social role of nuclear energy in the decline of the
constitutional state into the authoritarian nuclear state by
focussing on a range of indicators, including a report published by the American
National Advisory Committee on Criminal Justice in 1977 which suggested
that:in view of the high vulnerability of technical civilization, emergency legislation
should be introduced making it possible temporarily to ignore
constitutional safeguards without previous congressional
debate or consultation with the Supreme Court.(1979: 135) The bio-technopolitical mode of governance encapsulates subjects into its
folds such that it becomes a technical civilisationa
civilisation that, although promis-ing favourable aspects of
The nuclear
enclave consisting of scientists, bureau-crats and politicians, is
both the exception to and the rule that underpins the rest of
state practice. So even though we may be talking about a
domain of distinct governmental practice and political technology as
encapsulated by the notion of a nuclear state, it is evident that its influence
spreads beyond the nuclear domain in a discourse of
nuclearisation through state-related stratagems which have
become increasingly authoritarian and defence-orientated since
the late 1990s. In a nut-shell, discourses about the urgency of climate
change, global warming, nuclearpower and defence have
converged in a draconian and oppressive manner that now
parades itself as the necessary norm for the nation. Despite their
particularities, machinations of the Indian nuclear state are also nota-ble elsewhere. Joseph Masco
elaborates on the national-security state in the USA(2006: 14). Tony Hall comments upon the
defence-dominated, well-cushioned(nuclear) industry in the United Kingdom (1996: 10). And on
the recent issue of the construction of more nuclear power stations in Britain, David Ockwell
observesthat a public hearing was only undertaken for instrumental reasons (i.e. it was alegal
requirement), as demonstrated by a public statement by then prime ministerTony Blair that the
consultation wont affect the policy at all (2008: 264). These narratives are familiar across the
board where a nuclear renaissance is apparent. But critics continue to dispute the hijacking of
environmentalism by the state and argue that if climate change is the problem, then nuclear
power is by no means a solution. Moreover, the half-life of radioactive waste cannot be brushed
away in a misplacedvindication of the saying, out of sight, out of mind
entrenched social structures is the reason why nuclear power is so hard to dislodge. In the early
1950s, nuclear power had not yet been shown to be technologically feasible, much less
economically viable. In 1952 the Paley Commission in the US favoured heavy investment in solar
technology as the energy option of the future. Despite such options, nuclear power was promoted
oil, it was a way of producing electricity at a central location for distribution through the
established grid. Unlike oil, where there are several commercial outlets to chose from, we can only
maintaining the conditions necessary for corporate profit-making. Indeed, the state has intervened
in education and health, among other things, in order to ensure that capitalism is provided with a
continuing work force, that is, healthy workers with the right skills and attitudes. Similarly, the
state takes care of many of the other needs of capitalism, particularly subsidising the
large scale
'development' projects, such as nuclear power, can be seen as
a test of the state's commitment to key corporations and to
securing the conditions necessary for capitalist profitability .
Despite the intimate connections between the state and the corporate sector, there is also
a particular logic to capitalist investment. Projects which are
capital intensive, large scale, centralised and suitable for
monopolisation are favoured areas of corporate investment.
Thus promotion of energy efficiency, or of decentralised and
locally controlled energy sources, would do little for profits
and are thus ignored (or undermined) by corporate
management. Similarly, there has been little corporate interest in biological pest control
infrastructure (such as ports and rail lines) of large projects. In a way,
because it does not have readily monopolisable sources and cannot be easily oriented to a single
market consumer. In other words, profitability of this environmentally sound technology is minimal.
intellectual challenges which scientific research presents provide a strong driving force for the
scientists' attention and their energies upon research problems which are divorced from their
differentiate between masculinity, which is socially constructed, and maleness, which has a genetic
base. Most men exhibit culturally specific masculine behaviour and this behaviour is often
Within state
bureaucracies, corporations and the scientific community,
women are discriminated against through job and career
structures which concentrate men into the most powerful
positions. Commonly, to gain entry to these positions, women themselves are forced to adopt
expressed as domination of women and the environment.
a 'masculine approach'. It is at this level of power that masculine values emerge such as careerism,
competitiveness, aggressiveness, the separation of tasks from emotion, and patterns of
dominance. These values foster inequalities between people, thereby further concentrating power
into the hands of an elite and forming the basis of exploitation of other people and nature. Nuclear
weapons for example are a product of aggression and dominance relations as opposed to the more
feminine values of nurturing and caring. Indeed it would be difficult to imagine the development of
the
state and corporations mobilise patriarchal relations to serve
nuclear weapons in a society where feminine values predominated. On the one hand,
in which the scientific community is structured, particularly the impetus to continually publish
many
of the characteristics of modern science can be grouped under
the heading of 'masculine rationality'. This rationality sets up a
dualism between society and nature, production and
reproduction, the intellect and the emotions, and the technical
and the political. 1. Nature, which in the traditional metaphor is
seen as feminine, is regarded by masculine rationality as
merely a resource to be exploited or an enemy to be subjugated by society. 2.
Masculine elevation of the realm of production as the most
worthwhile area of life reflects the dominant presence men
have in this realm. At the same time the realm of reproduction is denigrated and so this
ahead of rivals, promotes intellectual aggressiveness and competitiveness. In addition
area which women have traditionally dominated is denied status. Yet production and reproduction
are both essential for a society's survival. The failure of masculine rationality to recognise the
value of both production and reproduction rules out the possibility of a harmonious balance
between current needs and long-term survival. Not surprisingly, this is the same balance which the
existence of nuclear weapons undermines. 3. Masculine rationality also endorses the separation of
the intellect and the emotions - the intellect being seen as superior - and the idea of emotional
neutrality towards objects of study. When ordinary people become actively concerned about
nuclear power, this style of rationality characterises them as emotional and ill-informed in contrast
to the experts who it depicts as involved in 'responsible, objective, scientific endeavour'. Thus too
scientists are encouraged to remain detached from the social consequences of their work. 4.
observe the processes of work intensification and the cheapening of labor. The markets are
dominated by the unproductive virtual economy (See Peterson, 2002) where the major players
are the financial institutions which, by means of sophisticated financial tools, buy and sell virtual
products (currencies, stocks, insurances, debts and its derivatives). In effect, the major actors in
the capitalist economy are the international investors who have the capability of financial
liquidity, and operate with those sophisticated financial tools on the global stock market. Even
when they lose those capacities because of indebtedness, the states and international
organizations seem often to be willing to repair the damage by transferring the taxes paid by
citizens. (This is actually happening now, during the financial crisis, when southern and western
European countries are subjected to shock therapy under which governments introduce austerity
seems to be another element of the competitiveness strategy. In the authorities mind set it could
put Poland into the position of more a competitive, more dynamic economy, as expected by the
European Union and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or the
of its 54 nuclear reactors are online and generating power, while the Japanese authorities conduct "stress tests", the government
hopes to reopen almost all of these and prolong the working life of a number of its ageing reactors by to up to 60 years. The
uranium mine in the world. In each case the impetus to maintain the anti-uranium policy came from the grassroots of the party,
methods to inform and involve the community. Commonly used methods include leaflet distribution, articles, talks, discussions,
films, petitions, rallies, marches, vigils and street theatre. Major anti-uranium rallies and marches were held each year in most
large cities, especially in the peak years of the uranium debate, 1976-1979 and again since 1983. A typical grassroots activity has
been the creation of nuclear-free zones, which is mainly a symbolic action which helps raise awareness and encourage local groups
to openly oppose nuclear power. This activity has worked closely with the dissemination of information through the media, local
groups, the alternative press and schools. In 1983 the people in the Bega Valley Shire voted to declare their area a nuclear-free
zone. To counter this popular sentiment, the Shire Council called in nuclear experts in order to argue the case against the nuclearfree zone. In this case the nuclear-free zone campaign provided a channel for exposing and challenging the role of nuclear
expertise and elites in promoting nuclear power. Civil disobedience has also been used by the anti-nuclear movement. In the late
1970s, nonviolent direct action was used on several occasions at ports where uranium was being loaded for export. At the Roxby
Downs blockade in August 1983, several hundred people gathered to express their opposition and hinder mining operations. Two
distinctive features of this protest were the use of nonviolent action and the way in which participants formed themselves into
affinity groups. These are a form of political organising which is consciously anti-elitist and aims to democratise all group
interactions. Education, rallies, marches, petitions and civil disobedience sometimes do little to challenge the structures underlying
nuclear power. For example, the rally outside Parliament House in October 1983 was primarily aimed at putting pressure on the
Labor Party at a time when it was considering its uranium policy. Similarly, the 'tent embassy' located on Parliament House lawns
aimed to prick the conscience of the ALP. One of the aims of the Roxby Downs blockade was to mobilise pressure to influence the
ALP. On the other hand, grassroots mobilisation often provides a potent challenge to nuclear power and the forces behind it. All the
lasting successes of Australian anti-uranium campaigns have depended ultimately on grassroots mobilisation, which provides a
reservoir of commitment and concern which elite-oriented activities do not. In 1975, the virtue of mining uranium was largely
unquestioned among the general public and the labour movement. It was simply unthinkable that a mineral which could be
profitably sold would be left in the ground. Yet by 1977 the anti-uranium view had become widely understood and strongly
supported. This change in opinion happened largely through the educational and organising efforts of the local anti-uranium
groups and of anti-uranium activists within organisations such as trade unions, schools and churches. The resurgence of antiuranium activity in 1983 owed much to the framework established in the late 1970s. The anti-uranium platform adopted by the
ALP in 1977 was the result of organising and education at the party branch level. ALP stands and action against uranium mining
have come consistently from the party grassroots, and this in turn has depended on anti-uranium sentiment in the general
community. Support for uranium mining within the ALP has always been strongest on the part of party elites. The anti-uranium
stands and actions by Australian trade unions have been stronger than in any other country in the world. Building on a tradition of
trade union action on social issues, this has come about from persistent grassroots education and organising at the shop floor
level. It has been the rank-and-file unionists who have taken the strongest anti-uranium stands, and the trade union elites who
have backed away from opposition. When in late 1981 the Seamen's Union refused to load yellowcake in Darwin, it was the rankand-file workers who took a stand and made the sacrifices. Does grassroots mobilisation then provide the most fruitful avenue for
challenging the structures behind nuclear power? Yes, but the choice of methods is not straightforward or automatic. The problem
with many grassroots methods used by the anti-uranium movement is that they have not been systematically organised and
focussed as part of an overall long-term strategy. Instead, individual groups - and indeed the national movement - has often just
looked ahead to the next rally, the next signature drive, or the next ALP Conference. While this approach does have some merit for
example in saving an area from irreversible environmental destruction, it is inadequate as an approach to stopping mining or
transforming the structures underlying nuclear power. For example the closing of Roxby mine would prevent the destruction of the
surrounding ecosystem including mound springs inhabited by forms of aquatic life found nowhere else in the world. If the
environment is altered, these unique creatures will be gone forever. However, the closing of Roxby in isolation would do nothing to
prevent mining companies from setting up or increasing production in other places. If, on the other hand, existing power structures
were challenged, and the closing of Roxby were carried out in conjunction with the closing of all uranium mines and a disbanding
of uranium interests, then the safety of these ecosystems would be assured. What needs to be done is to focus on vulnerable
points within the structures promoting nuclear power, and to devote efforts in these areas. What are the vulnerable points, then?
Nuclear power is
a large-scale vulnerable point in the structures of the state,
capitalism and so forth. In promoting nuclear power, and
thereby entrenching centralised political and economic power,
other consequences result which mobilise people in opposition:
environmental effects (especially radioactive waste), the connection with
nuclear weapons, threats to Aboriginal land rights, threats to
civil liberties, and many others. In organising to oppose these
specific threats, people at the same time can challenge the
driving forces behind nuclear power. Here are a few of the specific vulnerable points which
Before looking at specific vulnerable points, let's examine the nuclear power issue as a whole.
have been addressed by the anti-uranium movement. Threats to Aborigines. Nuclear power is alleged to be beneficial, but uranium
mining is a severe cultural threat to Aborigines, who are already a strongly oppressed group in Australia. The anti-uranium
movement and the Aboriginal land rights movements have been strengthened by joint actions, such as speaking tours. Centralised
decision-making. Nuclear power has widespread social effects, but promoters of nuclear power claim the decisions must be taken
by political and scientific elites. This runs counter to the rhetoric of Western democracies where ordinary people are meant to have
a say in political decision-making. By moving in on this embarrassing contradiction, protests which demand a role for the public in
decision-making about energy also challenge political elites and the political use of expertise. Capitalism and workers. Nuclear
power is alleged to be good for the economy and for workers, but in practice massive state subsidies to the industry are the rule,
and few jobs are produced for the capital invested. In challenging nuclear power as an inappropriate direction for economic
investment, a challenge is made to the setting of economic priorities by corporations and the state. Capitalism also directs
investments only into profitable areas, irrespective of their social benefits. If activists can undermine the profitability of marginal
enterprises by delaying tactics or by jeopardising state subsidies, then capitalist investment can be shunted away from socially
destructive areas. For example, direct actions against Roxby Downs could in the long run undermine its profitability and cause its
closure. Grassroots mobilisation is usually the most effective way to intervene at vulnerable points such as these. A suitable
combination of interventions then forms the basis for a strategy against uranium mining. But how can uranium mining actually be
stopped? This is a good question. Grassroots mobilisation does not by itself stop uranium mining. The mobilisation must connect
with major forces in society. There are several ways this can occur. Uranium mining could be stopped: (1) by direct decision of the
government; (2) by the unions acting directly through strikes or bans to prevent uranium mining, export, or construction of nuclear
plants; (3) through cost escalations, for example resulting from requirements to ensure safety or environmental protection, (4) by
a referendum whose results were adhered to; (5) by legal action on the part of aborigines or anti-uranium forces; (6) by direct
action to physically stop mining from proceeding. A critical element necessary to the success of any of these methods is the
mobilisation of a large section of the public against uranium mining. Thus for example government action to stop mining would be
likely to take place only if there were mass mobilisation on the issue. Similarly 'direct action' could only succeed if popular support
were so great that the government refused to use sufficient force to physically overcome the resisters. To give an idea of how
grassroots methods could be coordinated into a strategy to stop uranium mining, consider a hypothetical example. Suppose an
analysis of the current political situation suggested that direct action by workers and unions gave the most immediate promise for
directly stopping uranium mining, while government decision and cost escalations were also likely avenues for stopping mining. A
grassroots strategy might include the following: Systematic community organising and education, to provide a basis in popular
sympathy and support for direct action by workers. Points to be emphasised would include the right of workers to take direct
action on conscience issues as well as work-related issues, and the importance of questioning decisions made solely on the basis
of corporate profitability or state encouragement of large-scale economic investment. Development of alternative plans for
investment and jobs based on input from workers and communities, and widespread dissemination of the ideas and rationale for
the alternative plans. A series of rallies, marches, vigils and civil disobedience, aimed at both mobilising people and illustrating the
strength of anti-uranium feeling. These actions would be coordinated towards major points for possible worker intervention, such
as trade union conferences or the start of work for new mines. Through consultation with unions, workers and working-class
families, the establishment of support groups and funds for workers and unions penalised for direct action against uranium mining.
Plans to make parallel challenges to those by workers, such as simultaneous defiance of the Atomic Energy Act by trade unionists
and community activists. Black bans of corporations or state instrumentalities by unionists could be coordinated with boycotts
organised by community groups. With such a strategy, it is likely that the workers taking action would come under strong attacks
from both corporations and the government. Preparation to oppose such attacks would depend on community mobilisation to
demonstrate support for the workers in the media, in the streets, through informal communication channels and to the workers
themselves. If direct action by workers began to be sustained through community support, it is quite possible that other channels
for stopping uranium mining could come into play: the government - especially a Labor government - might back away from
confrontation with unions supported by the community, or corporations might decide investment in this controversial area was too
risky. Plans would be required to continue the campaign towards these or other avenues for stopping uranium mining. How does
grassroots mobilisation provide a challenge to the structures underlying nuclear power? It challenges the division of labour and the
role of elites, especially the role of political elites which have a corner on the exercise of social responsibility, by mobilising in a
widespread way the social concern of ordinary people and by demonstrating the direct exercise of this concern for example by
groups in the workplace. Grassroots mobilisation challenges the division of labour and the role of scientific elites through a
challenge to the prestige and credibility of scientists who advocate nuclear power. As the nuclear power issue has been widely
debated, it has become obvious to many people that the expertise of pro-nuclear scientists and engineers is tied to vested
interests. The nuclear debate has greatly weakened the belief that 'the experts know best'. Grassroots mobilisation challenges the
masculine rationality of dominant structures through calling contemporary values and attitudes to nature and to the future into
question. Within the antinuclear movement, patriarchy has been challenged as at least some groups have addressed domination
by men and developed egalitarian modes of interaction and decision-making. This sometimes has been fostered by nonviolent
action training used to prepare for civil disobedience actions. The anti-nuclear movement has inevitably involved questioning the
growth of energy use and development of programmes for a 'soft energy future' involving energy efficiency, renewable energy
sources, and redesign of communities to reduce energy requirements. The challenge to unending energy growth is a direct
challenge to the state and capitalism, whose power is tied to traditional economic expansion. Mass mobilisation against uranium
also challenges capitalism by bringing under scrutiny the rationale of pursuing profitability at the expense of social responsibility
and by direct economic blows to corporate profitability. More fundamentally, nuclear power represents a potential new stage in the
entrenchment of centralised political and economic control and of specialist knowledge in the service of elites. By challenging the
political and economic rationale for nuclear power, and by making demands for local control over energy decision-making, a direct
challenge is made to the power of the state and corporations. It is important to realise that none of these challenges on their own
are likely to bring down these structures however much they may weaken them. Sufficiently many blows however over a sustained
period could do so. Thus campaigns on the nuclear issue could begin or be part of a process of sustained challenge which could
thing to understand about the nuclear industry is that nuclear is also the coal and natural gas industry, said Tim Judson, executive
director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which published the September 2014 report Killing the Competition
about nuclear attacks on renewables. Wind and efficiency are just boutique elements of their portfolios. Nuclear Energy Institute
spokesman Thomas Kauffman said that the institute does not take a position on renewable energy subsidies and that it, supports
the Obama administrations all-of-the-above energy strategy. He declined to answer further questions and said that groups
weighing in about recent developments have a history of opposing nuclear power. Colafella and Young of FirstEnergy said we
believe that a diverse mix of generating assets, including renewables, is needed to keep power flowing reliably and affordably.
Low market prices which are largely driven by low-cost natural gas, not renewables are putting pressure on baseload
generating plants that reliably deliver power to our customers around the clock, they added. But, they reiterated they expect
prices to rise, reviving the nuclear plants profits. Auction action Nuclear energy and wind power are both known as price-takers
in the regional auctions where generators sell their energy. In these auctions, all sellers get the same price for energy sold at a
.
Nuclear plants and wind turbines both generate energy very
cheaply, even though the overall costs of maintaining and
running a nuclear plant are high. Before the fracking revolution, natural gas-fired power was
given time. They are all paid the price of the most expensive bid that is accepted into the auction to meet demand
typically much more expensive than other sources, so nuclear and coal generators would enjoy getting paid at the same rate as
promising to be ready to provide energy at peak times. The PJM regional market has adopted changes that greatly increase the
capacity payments that Exelons nuclear plants will receive, while making it extremely difficult for wind and solar to benefit from
these payments. Exelon lobbied hard for the changes, which must still be approved by federal regulators.
Paradigm
Exelon has argued that people with solar panels should not be
paid the retail rate for energy they send back to the grid. This
same position has been taken by utilities around the country
looking to curb distributed solar generation; in most cases it has met with
strong opposition from both the public and regulators. Exelons stance on solar has stoked resistance to the
companys proposed merger with Pepco. Exelon spokesman Paul Adams said, As technology continues to evolve, it is important
that we maintain a reliable, secure and universally available electric grid and ensure that energy policies do not permit shifting the
costs of maintaining the grid from some customers to others, creating energy haves and have nots. This is the same argument
that We Energies has made in its highly controversial rate case in Wisconsin. Makhijani called Exelons point disingenuous,
especially since the changes Exelon pushed in the capacity market will likely increase Illinois customers rates 11 percent or more.
Its crocodile tears, the crocodile feeling very sorry for this deer it just caught, Makhijani said. Suddenly theres this huge
concern for the poor. Louisiana-based Entergy has also promoted policies that pay low rates to customers with solar panels for
the energy they send back to the grid. Entergy has nuclear plants that sell their power on the open market as well as regulated
nuclear plants where the company is guaranteed to recoup its costs from ratepayers. Fighting over subsidies Nuclear proponents
have long depicted tax breaks for wind and other renewables as unfair and a threat to reliability. In 2012 Exelon was expelled from
the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and its board, because of Exelons aggressive lobbying to end the federal
Production Tax Credit which provided tax breaks crucial for wind development. It was simply a fact that they no longer supported
the aims of promoting wind power, said AWEA spokesman Peter Kelley. They were marshaling allies, teaming up with anti-wind
when wind had any impact on their business at all, to be convinced by Exelons arguments, Kelley said. Theyre ignoring the real
reasons and blaming wind because they may think its [politically] expedient. Adams said the Exelon believes the transition to
clean energy should be left to the free market, rather than through the government picking technology winners and losers through
tax subsidies. We believe that the wind PTC has served its purpose and oppose its reinstatement. Exelon had argued that the
Production Tax Credit was causing a phenomenon known as negative pricing when power from its nuclear plants could not be
delivered where it was wanted. In March 2014 AWEA released a study criticizing Exelon for what it called exaggerations and
distortions on that issue. AWEA said negative pricing was rare, was caused more by congestion on power lines and other factors
subsidies related to construction, operation, insurance, waste management and uranium mining. Its the throwing stones from
glass houses problem, said Makhijani. They have more glass in their house than any other industry. Clean power plans Nuclear
plants could benefit substantially from the clean power plans that states are developing in keeping with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)s rules on reducing carbon emissions from power plants. Much depends on how the final EPA rules play
out and how states decide to achieve their required reductions. The Nuclear Energy Institute wrote a letter in December to EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy asking the EPA to treat avoided carbon emissions from existing nuclear plants the same way that
reduced emissions are treated. And it noted that the EPAs calculations show that per ton of carbon avoided, nuclear plants are
cheaper than creating new sources of renewable energy. Renewable energy, nuclear energy and hydro receive vastly different
treatment under the proposed [EPA] rule, but nuclear energy does not receive appropriate credit, says the letter.
Environmentalists say that rewarding existing nuclear plants for their zero-carbon power is not in the spirit of the EPA rules.
Exelon has talked about redefining clean energy to include nuclear plants that produce large amounts of highly radioactive
waste, said Learner. That too-clever definition is simply not credible with the public. To redefine clean energy to include nuclear
power really doesnt pass the straight-face test.
Nuclear and renewables directly trade off nuclear caps progress on renewables. Main 15 JD
Ivy Main JD 11/12/15 [Sierra Club, Power for the People VA: The Virginia Energy Blog, Ivy Main Freelance]
Nuking clean energy: how nuclear power makes wind and solar harder
Dominion Resources CEO Tom Farrell is famously bullish on nuclear energy as a clean solution in a carbon-constrained economy,
Mid-Atlantic, including Virginia. Demand can be almost twice as high at 5 p.m. as it is at 5 a.m., especially on a hot summer day
you build a lot of wind turbines and want to use all the electricity they generate (much of it at night), some of it will compete to
of course, baseload generating sources can be made flexible, and wind and solar made firm. Storage adds to cost and
environmental footprint, though, so it is not a panacea. That said, Virginia is lucky enough to have one of the largest pumped
storage facilities in the country, located in Bath County. Currently Dominion uses its 1,800 MW share of the facility as a relatively
low-cost way to meet some peak demand with baseload sources like coal and nuclear, but it could as easily be used to store
produce the most electricity. The problem of nuclear competing with wind and solar has gotten little or no attention in the U.S.,
where renewables still make up only a small fraction of most states energy mixes. However, at an October 27 workshop about
Germanys experience with large-scale integration of renewable energy into the grid, sponsored by the American Council on
Renewable Energy, Patrick Graichen of the German firm Agora Energiewende pointed to this problem in explaining why his
organization is not sorry the country is closing nuclear plants at the same time it pursues ambitious renewable energy targets.
Nuclear, he said, just makes it harder. How big a problem is this likely to be in the U.S.? Certainly there is not enough nuclear in
the PJM Interconnection grid as a whole to hog all the baseload in the region, and PJM has concluded it can already integrate up to
30% renewable energy without affecting reliability. But the interplay of nuclear and renewables is already shaping utility
strategies. Dominion Virginia Power is on a campaign to build out enough generation in Virginia to eliminate its imports of
electricity from out of state. And in Virginia, nuclear makes up nearly 40% of Dominions generation portfolio. Now Dominion
wants to add a third nuclear reactor at its North Anna site, to bring the number of its reactors in Virginia to five. If the company
also succeeds in extending the life of its existing reactors, the combination would leave precious little room for any other energy
resource that produces power when demand is low. That affects coal, which is primarily a baseload resource. It would also impact
combined-cycle natural gas plants, which are more flexible than coal or nuclear but still run most efficiently as baseload. But the
greatest impact is on our potential for renewables. This desire to keep high levels of nuclear in its mix explains Dominions lack of
interest in land-based wind power, which produces mostly at night and therefore competes with nuclear as a baseload source.
Dominions latest Integrated Resource Plan pretty much dismisses wind, assigning it a low value and a strangely high price tag in
an effort to make it look like an unappealing option. Dominion shows more interest in solar as a daytime source that fills in some
of the demand curve above baseload. But given Dominions commitment to nuclear, its appetite for Virginia solar is likely to be
limited. Already it insists that every bit of solar must be backed up with new natural gas combustion turbines, which are highly
flexible but less efficient, more expensive and more polluting than combined-cycle gas, and add both cost and fuel-price risk.