> Re: Jacobin: The Socialist Case for Nuclear Power (Dec 6) by Matt Huber
> From: Charles 
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Re:%20Jacobin%3A%20The%20Socialist%20Case%20for%20Nuclear%20Power%20%28Dec%206%29%20by%20Matt%20Huber>
> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2025 23:47:08 EST 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 10:48 PM, Howie Hawkins wrote:
> The Green Party’s platform plank on the GND ...
> ... is long! The linchpin for all the nice things in it is: "Transition to 
> 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 [!] using wind, solar, ocean, 
> small-scale hydro, and geothermal power." This gets to the crux of the real 
> debate: are these five sources capable of supplying all the energy, even in a 
> socialist economy? The Green platform does not even try to make the case.

The news release should have referred to a 10-year crash program as the 
platform plank does. The 2030 deadline had been what the Greens had been 
calling for throughout the 2010s and it got grandfathered into the release by 
those who wrote it. The quote from me was taken from one of many statements I 
had made about what the AOC/Markey GND had left out from what the Greens had 
been campaign for throughout the 2010s. 

The technical and economic feasibility of going 100% renewables in 10 years is 
based on the work of Stanford environmental engineer Mark Jacobson and his 
colleagues.

Mark Z. Jacobson, 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything 
(Cambridge University Press, 2020).

Dozens of technical studies at 
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-50-USState-plans.html

In the early 2010s, Jacobson made the case for a 10-year program and a 2030 
deadline. The later studies make 2050 the goal for 100% renewables. We know 
from talking to him that he changed that goal for political, not technical or 
economic reasons. It was what he felt was the most he could convince Democrats 
to accept. That is why we need the Green Party.

> For one thing, note that obsolete wind turbines and solar panels would reach 
> tens of millions of tons. Has recycling of them been figured in? Nuclear 
> waste runs to several thousand tons, much of which can be reprocessed and 
> used again as new fuel.

Recycling was figured in under the Ecological Manufacturing paragraph of the 
Ecosocialist Green New Deal plank. 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#39685): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39685
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116655555/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy 
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


Reply via email to