Okay so I was scrolling through the PSL’s info page, and it is stated that they are to denuclearize the power grid. Why is this? I was under the impression that Nuclear Energy is the much more sustainable and frankly realistic source of power–even without Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium based ones.
Im finding it most orgs tend to stay away from Nuclear energy due to fear mongering from fossil fuel industries; Thus its stain in the imperial core, reaching from liberals to western "leftists". But I am surprised the PSL, a radical organization, is anti-nuclear.
FYI this isn't a deal breaker or anything--they seem to be taking the lead for vanguard party--just was curious of the stance on nuclear energy.
I’m not anti nuclear but it has problems.
There isn’t enough nuclear fuel available. Countries that are heavily nuclear can only achieve this through the rape of African and Indigenous lands through violence and neocolonialism. Also waste storage is a regime built by NIMBYs.
You might say b-b-but we will end capitalism and colonialism! Cool then so we wave the magic wand and do that. So what makes you think west Africans are going to care to give all their uranium to France? Also, there still isn’t enough fuel for the world to rely on it, regardless of how equitable it could be.
That being said nuclear has some strong pros for it as well. It could be huge for African nations that need baseline energy but want to skip the emissions of coal.
Well… Maybe it’s just me. But I kinda look at these things like this.
What if West Africa developed their own nuclear and sold the energy in a mutually beneficial deal?
I dont think the energy NOR the location is the problem. The issue is colonialism and capitalism.
Solar for places that can do solar.
Wind for those who can do wind.
Nuclear for those that can.
Hydrothermal for those that can.
But capital gotta capital. 🤷♂️
Wind for those who can do wind.
Nuclear for those that can.
Hydrothermal for those that can.
This is the way. With nuance of course.
The thing about ending colonialism is that France loses its power grid. The US would likley lose several dams and access to uranium and fossil fuels. It would be upheaval. All of this would likely be incremental, or come in waves, of course, but its why dogmatic pro nuclear rhetoric falls short and even gets in the way of equity and sustainability. It is partly because of the lobbyist jargon that seeps through is mostly centered on pitting nuclear against coal and not really on what decolonization and socialist construction would look like in the energy sector.
Why do you say that there isn’t enough? Was there even that much of an effort to discover uranium deposits in the first place? It seems like a very underused resource. It’s also recyclable, not like the waste is entirely useless.