[Edited Message Follows]
Very out of date, Duen. India already produces nuclear WMD on it's own without
the help of commercial nuclear reactors. They do with militarized "research"
reactors in the exact same way the U.S. and other nuclear weapon powers do it.
Secondly, the opening comment is ba
Very out of date, Duen. India already produces nuclear WMD on it's own without
the help of commercial nuclear reactors. They do with militarized "research"
reactors in the exact same way the U.S. and other nuclear weapon powers do it.
Secondly, the opening comment is basically a lie. No one argu
"In the years before it's first nuclear test in May 1974, India's top
nuclear officials posed a significant challenge to U.S. nonproliferation
policy when they insisted that they could freely use plutonium produced in
their nuclear reactors for a peaceful nuclear explosion (pne). For
Washington, t
> On Feb 18, 2025, at 10:48 AM, Tom Walker via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> In my pop-up book, Marx's Fetters: a remedial reading
I failed your intelligence test Tom and cannot figure out to read the book
sequentially. Do you have it in paper form?
Mark
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links
> On Feb 18, 2025, at 5:26 PM, Charlie via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> What counts is which concepts model real life the best.
Reasonable and informed people can - and do - disagree on that. So often people
will ask which components Marx thought modeled real life the best. Now we are
in the rea
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:26 PM, Charlie wrote:
>
> Exactly the wrong way to "evaluate" and operate. What counts is not text
> versus text. What counts is which concepts model real life the best. Your
> textualism is a firm opposite to materialism.
Do you have a crush on me, Charlie?
-=-=-=-=
Walker: 'Marx was always "working things out" and thus it is unwise to pick a
sentence from this 1852 letter or a passage from that 1859 preface as the
definitive statement of "Historical Materialism." That isn't how I operate.
When I cite a passage from the Grundrisse, it is not because th
hari kumar asked:
> How much credence do you think there is to this following thought -
> That since Marx was 'working things out' in 'Grundrisse' he simply
> developed his arguments in a differing way.
Absolutely, Marx was always "working things out" and thus it is unwise to
pick a sentence fro
> On Feb 18, 2025, at 2:54 PM, David Walters via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> I never saw it coming, Mark. The term is theirs, not mine. If you follow
> Saito and Foster, it is a term they use. But it should be discussed more
> fully, obviously.
>
It is "degrowth."
Mark
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hello Tom:
How much credence do you think there is to this following thought -
That since Marx was 'working things out' in 'Grundrisse' he simply developed
his arguments in a differing way. For example the page-half of the start of
what became 'The Commodity" in Volume 1 as Chapter 1?
Thanks for
I never saw it coming, Mark. The term is theirs, not mine. If you follow Saito
and Foster, it is a term they use. But it should be discussed more fully,
obviously.
David
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#35298): https://gr
> On Feb 18, 2025, at 8:58 AM, David Walters via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> I want to address Mark B.'s new, it seems, adherence to de-development
> separately.
You make it sound like "new adherence" is a bad thing, David. And it's not
de-development.
Mark
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io L
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 01:48 PM, Tom Walker wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 04:29 PM, Mark Baugher wrote:
>
>> And this calls into question another quotation from Marx's 1859 Critique
>> of Political Economy:
>>
>> "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of
>> soc
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 04:29 PM, Mark Baugher wrote:
>
> And this calls into question another quotation from Marx's 1859 Critique
> of Political Economy:
>
> "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of
> society come into conflict with the existing relations of product
[I want to address Mark B.'s new, it seems, adherence to de-development
separately.]
I wanted to respond to the "nuclear energy equals nuclear WMD" urban legend(s).
There IS a connection between civilian nuclear energy and nuclear weapons bit
is not what anyone thinks on this list. The only cou
Mark wishes that "hopefully the problems have been debated; solutions decided
and then implemented by a highly-organized and conscious working class."
Bellamy Foster, Saito, and Burkett can have their theoretical go. Opposite
views will have their say, too. I've written (
https://mltoday.com/gl
> On Feb 16, 2025, at 10:09 AM, Charlie via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> What is this "rift in the global left on ecology"? A review of two books does
> not qualify as documentation of one.
There's always a rift on the left, Charlie. Here's JBF's take on the ecological
rift between various flavo
What is this "rift in the global left on ecology"? A review of two books does
not qualify as documentation of one.
The big rift is in the ecological movement, between reform under capitalism and
socialist revolution as the only way out. One side says we cannot "wait" for
socialism. The other si
... in an isolated First People's community of...350 members. They have little
choice unless they want to continue to pay for expensive diesel. Nothing on
costs or reliability. They will end up having to build about 4 times name plate
capacity to power their small village for 24 hours. I wonder
"most solar in the northern hemisphere is only .18 or 1/5th the rated
power."
David believes that solar isn't feasible at northern latitudes when in fact
it is already happening. Here are a couple more internet "bites" to
enlighten him:
communitygreenmap.ca May 22, 2024
"The T'Sou-ke Nation on
On Thu, Feb 13, 2025 at 09:27 AM, David Walters wrote:
>
> On the other comment about costs. Now, that is a far more serious
> discussion... if one adds up all the real costs, nuclear comes out cheaper
> than solar and wind. It IS a huge debate but the only real one that is
> effective in getting
[Edited Message Follows]
New Zealand then is like Sweden and the Canadian province of Ontario. Both have
large amounts of hydro and in their case, nuclear (approx. 50% in each), which
together allow for almost no fossil fuel burning at all. Sweden is now
reconsidering its decades old ban on new
New Zealand then is like Sweden and the Canadian province of Ontario. Both have
large amounts of hydro and in their case, nuclear (approx. 50% in each), which
together allow for almost no fossil fuel burning at all. Sweden is now
reconsidering its decades old ban on new nuclear.
David
-=-=-=-
One obvious issue with solar is that it only generates power during the
daytime, and that is not when most domestic power use occurs. Obviously
industry is working in the middle of the day (if not also at night) but
households often use most of their power in the evening, after work, and to
heat th
[a response to all the comments I've not responded to as of now]
Duen pulling sound bites off the internet is hardly enlightening or expanding
our understanding of the issues. Jakzco was *appointed* by Harry Reid (Senator
from Nevada) to kill Yucca Mountain. He was and remains an anti-nuclear ha
Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island?
Never happened.
"Nuclear is unlikely to make a relevant contribution to necessary climate
change mitigation needed by the 2030's due to nuclear's impracticably
lengthy development and construction timelines, and the overwhelming
construction costs of the v
The Martin Bush article talks about current costs per kWh. It cites technology
options that may lower solar and wind costs. It does not address how much solar
and wind output of electricity can be expanded. Their output can be expanded,
of course – but that adds additional costs which the articl
David, I’ve always been impressed by your pro-nuclear advocacy. This article is
slightly dated, but strikes me an equally persuasive counter-argument. Can you
point to any flaws in his reasoning or evidence?
By Martin Bush
Policy Options
September 1 2023
>
>
> https://policyoptions.irpp.org/m
First, to answer "Modulas" what you write is factually accurate. But the costs
to extract uranium from seawater is about 10x what the current price-per-pound
is, or even more. The article is a good one and both the Chinese and Japanese
are working on this technology. So, technically, uranium is
> On Feb 10, 2025, at 4:29 PM, David Walters via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> 1. YES, we need more energy. We need a LOT more energy in order to get OFF of
> fossil fuels, our common goal.
Do you think WE on this list have a common goal with THEY who produce energy
commodities? According to THEM
Hi,
Regarding the issue of uranium availability:
On 11/02/2025 5:50, David Walters via groups.io wrote:
Good question. We use about 70,000 tons a year as fuel for reactors and
for military weapons. Uranium, like any raw material commodity under the
political economy of Imperialism reserves of
Good question. We use about 70,000 tons a year as fuel for reactors and for
military weapons. Uranium, like any raw material commodity under the political
economy of Imperialism reserves of it depend on what the price may be, per
pound, at any given time. When the price goes down, the "amount" o
Out of interest, how much uranium or other reactor fuel is estimated to
exist and how long might it last? Because it may not be a fossil fuel but
it is finite.
Comradely,
John
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025, 13:29 David Walters via groups.io, wrote:
> David, Is that what we want? More energy? More poison
>
> David, Is that what we want? More energy? More poison to accumulate, or
> eventually to be dumped on the lands of the least powerful?
>
>
Mark, are raising literally 3 distinct issues.
1. YES, we need more energy. We need a LOT more energy in order to get OFF of
fossil fuels, our common go
> On Feb 10, 2025, at 11:27 AM, David Walters via groups.io
> wrote:
>
> By repeating such radiophobic haikus about nuclear essentially has allowed
> the pro-energy and pro-nuclear side to dominate.
David, Is that what we want? More energy? More poison to accumulate, or
eventually to be du
Duen writes:
>
> David persists in fighting a losing battle, flogging his radioactive dead
> horse, "Pirani revolves his POV around the need to build out solar and
> wind. Mine is to build out nuclear"
>
>
A losing battle? Do tell? One of the things that non-energy interested folks
do, is a
David persists in fighting a losing battle, flogging his radioactive dead
horse, "Pirani revolves his POV around the need to build out solar and
wind. Mine is to build out nuclear"
gienergy.com.au
Solar Power VS Nuclear Power - Which is better?
"While nuclear power produces a lot of energy and i
37 matches
Mail list logo
