Skip to main content

Introducing Left Atomics

For a long time now, we've contended that nuclear energy shouldn't be a left/right issue. Thanks to folks like N. Nadir, we've found that there are folks who agree.

Make room for one more: Left Atomics:
Left Atomics is a group of left activists: socialists, progressives, Marxists, etc., who believe that nuclear energy can be a positive force for humanity. We propose that the Left, broadly speaking, should support, not oppose, nuclear energy.

We will be posting here a Manifesto for Nuclear Energy that we hope can be the basis of a discussion on the left among pro- and anti-nuclear activists. We feel that by and large there has been only knee-jerk opposition to nuclear energy by the left. Few have re-examined the technology of nuclear power production, the enormous changes that have been made in operating safely old plants since 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl and the newer Generation III plants currently under construction or being proposed.
Count us as another party ready to engage in some meaningful dialogue. Welcome to the debate.

Thanks to Rod Adams for the pointer.

CORRECTION: The link to N. Nadir's diary on DailyKos has been corrected.


Anonymous said…
Is this group funded by the industry, a la CASEnergy?
Anonymous said…
Eric: You have the wrong link for me. My diaries at Kos - most of which are about nuclear power but also discuss other subjects - embrace the perspectives shared by many Democrats, can be found here:

I am advising Democrats that many of their goals depend upon having clean safe energy and that the cleanest and safest energy available in nuclear energy.

I certainly hope I'm not being included among the Marxists or Socialists, since I am neither and have explicitly stated as much over at DKos. Frankly I don't have much patience in any case for arguments about social systems and whether nuclear power alone among energy systems must solve structural social problems.

Generally I am suspicious of labels, since almost all of them generate knee-jerk reactions. Some words of this type are "progressive," "liberatarian," "free marketeer" even words like "Democrat," "Republican," etc, even words like "environmentalist." Now, I will not tell you that I am above such reactions myself - I'm not - but it's sometimes less than useful.

I think that no matter how one identifies oneself, one must above all think critically. To think critically, among other things, one must examine the case itself rather than who is stating the case and how he or she is identified.

But your point is well taken. No part of the political or economic spectrum can ignore the benefits of nuclear energy. They are, or should be obvious at this point, obvious.

This is a time of dramatic change, I think, and we're going to see quite a bit of flux with the old labels and some surprising attitudes coming from some surprising people. There is really nothing wrong with that. If a formula doesn't fit a problem, it follows that the problem doesn't go away. Thus the formula, not the problem, needs to be changed. Put another way, more familiar to those with a scientific bent, if experiment doesn't fit theory, it is time to discard - or at least refine - the theory, not the experiment.

gunter said…
Should we expect to start seeing groups like "Atomic Power Enthusiast" (APE) or "Cocker Spaniel Owners for More Radioactive Waste"... what's your point?
Gunter, NIRS

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …