SuperCapitalism is a great book.
This was a surprise to me. It turns out that one of the best ways to view the changes in our culture since the 70s is through considering the importance of consumers, investors, and the impact of corporate competition on Democracy. This book is intelligent, meaningful, relevant, and might find a place in your book shelf, because it needs to find a place in your mind.
I hope to post another reply on this topic. Corporate competition creates lobbyists that shift our democracy to focusing on their concerns exclusively in the real time of politics. Let it be known that that is not going to serve you well.
Clean coal my ***! Nuclear power is much more meaningful than coal, and carbon based fuels have no hope in a safe and environmentally friendly future. Coal doesn’t even bring about as much power! You can cut use, but you’d do better to increase it ten fold and replace coal power plants with nuclear ones. This is common knowledge amongst physicists in my experience, but if your opinion differs, please justify it in the comment section.
Take care.
And productive! That’s the whole thing. They can do better than coal every time. They can also beat renewable sources that we have available today.
Stupid hear the word nuclear and they get scared. Modern nuclear power plants are very very safe.
Well, it is a view I hadn’t considered. Thanks for putting it up here. I think the demand for power though is pretty steep, and no known power source produces more than nuclear. Fission will create the most kilowatts for the least environmental damage until these alternatives get off the ground, and even then they’ve got a lot of work to do to catch up.
Cont’d
Note I mentioned research not because the technology is not ready for use. Quite the contrary they can’t produce enough windmills and solar panels to keep up with demand.
But more research could make solar so cheap that it outcompetes fossil fuels and nukes. Although you can imagine what will happen to that research funding once the lobby for that brand new nuke realizes that their plant still has 20 years to go before it is paid off while solar could undercut its prices in a few years.
I think that question is loaded. I doubt you can get a new nuke on line in under ten years with all the planning procedures and financing.
In the same time, or rather much sooner, you could think about and implement the grid and storage infrastructure (that you need anyways) and that would make alternative energies truly a viable solution.
An interesting objection.
So you recognize that coal isn’t “clean” power at all? Still you don’t want to simply move to nuclear and fund research on alternative energy?
Cont’d
But these expensive centralized solutions don’t work in the developing world because they can’t pay the front-up costs. They could use renewable sources but only if such solutions are cheaper than fossil fuels. And they will become only cheaper when the West invests in the research and lowers the price through economies of scale. But that won’t happen (or happen much later) if you put major parts of the US on nukes.
Nuclear power plants are centralized energy solutions. Due to the money involved you are building up a lobby both of energy companies and the politicians whose careers hang on these big investments that will kill off all alternative approaches in the catchment area of the plants thus creating local monopolies.
It isn’t entirely off topic. It is another way in which the “Clean Coal” campaign is harming us. They are using a limited resource that costs lives in the most planet-damaging way and calling it good in spite of facts. That’s supercapitalism’s effect on Democratic discussion.
Indeed, the smartest environmentalists are advocates of nuclear power, for example James Lovelock.
I’m not aware of a book that details all this, although there really should be one. I picked it up from studying organic chemistry. If you ever do encounter such a book, I’d be interested to know about it.
The compounds I’m talking about are solvents, resins, adhesives, disinfectants, detergents, lubricants, pesticides, explosives, dyes, preservatives, waxes, propellants, paints, surfactants, thickening agents, polymers, carbon composites, coke for making electrodes and the catalysts used to purify metals, kerosene for storing reactive materials, tar, asphalt, plastics, and medicines.
All those and more is made from the same fossil fuels we’re lighting on fire. Kind of off-topic, though. Sorry.
“Clean coal” is indeed bullshit. I should have specified that the part I was being nitpicky about was “or to do anything.” As far as I know, the only things coal is used for besides power are smelting and “oil from coal.”
The uses I mentioned are ones where organic compounds are manufactured from fossil hydrocarbons. It was first done with oil and when oil was more readily available, so oil is what we still use, although in principle, coal would work. But we’re burning both of them up–a lot.
Yeah. The sun’s here to stay. We’ll probably need a varied energy policy, but solar should have a place in it.
I honestly had absolutely no idea…wow… in any case, I believe solar energy is the right path.
Uranium, plutonium, and heavy metal mining does some damage to the environment, but not nearly as much as coal. Also miners die in uranium and plutonium mines, but not as often as coal miners. Further, fewer would be needed.
It’s varied. I don’t know what kind of work you want. Jobs are tight everywhere, but you should be able to find something there
I think that there is far more uranium, plutonium, etc. then you give the world credit for. We could replace most coal power plants in a few years, possibly all.
Oh boy. You hit on my hot button issue with the so called “clean” coal. I live near the Applachian mountains, which have been decimated by mountaintop removal coal mining. I’ve been fighting the practice for years and it’s been an uphill battle, because so many politicians are literally bought off by these companies. Even “clean coal” still requires removal which destroys entire ecosystems and turns beautiful mountains into a barren moonscape. So the subject of coal makes me see red. Good vid!
I agree, clean coal is a joke. We do need nuclear power and needed it 20 years ago.
Now that I know your from NM, my Partner and I were visiting ALQ and Santa Fe and Roswell, is it a good place rto live and what is the job market like? I am a retired Firefighter and soon he will retire as a Pilot,,but we still want to work.
The problem with nuclear power (besides disposal of waste produced from the fuel production stream as well as spent rods) is that it relies on a very limited resource. In fact, this resource is so limited that it cannot replace fossil fuel power production.
I hope you do. It’s relevant, and kind of blowing me away right now.
I’ve almost never seen coal used for much besides burning for heat. I’d be interested in the other uses you mention.
I wish I had given this book a better video.
“Clean coal” is in reference to power plants. Complete and utter bullshit. Tarot card level bullshit. They know better, too.
Excellent point about nuclear power vs. coal power.
I’m going to nitpick and say it’s technically possible to do something with coal that isn’t bad for the environment if the something doesn’t involve combustion. As far as I know, we’re still using petroleum to make our organic compounds, but coal is a potential carbon source for this too and if we keep literally burning up reserves of both, those organic compounds are going to become a lot more expensive.