This past October, we looked at the advantages and disadvantages of recommitting to nuclear power as a strategy to wean ourselves away from reliance on carbon fuel. That post was written from the point of view of climate change.
But even though that discussion was less than half a year ago, it feels as though we've entered a new and more dangerous geopolitical era now. War dispatches from Ukraine report that the Russian army shelled the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power facility earlier this week. A large fire was ignited at a training facility on the campus, but the hardened reactor shells apparently weren't penetrated, and it seems that reactors weren't compromised.
Nevertheless, the presence of large nuclear reactors in the midst of a hot war in which bombs are falling and shells are exploding, surely should cause the world to reassess the risks of nuclear power.
It may also be worth noting that Russia is a petroleum exporting state. The Zaporizhzhia plant going offline means that a large percentage of Ukraine no longer has power, which obviously advances the aim of Russia's invasion. And any event which makes Russian natural gas seem like a more reliable source of power works to Putin's advantage.
Whenever there's a war, fossil fuels always pop up in the analysis. Even with Afghanistan, there was talk of a gas pipeline across to India from the other stan countries. If we want to avoid fossil fuel as a war factor or cause, we need to get off of them. But we may have to rebuild our living spaces around public transportation and feet. I'm afraid millions of electric cars will create their own ecological and strategic problems. No use replacing fighting over oil with fighting over lithium.
ReplyDeleteI understand Ukraine is a major source of Lithium, so a very on-point comment!
DeleteThe Russians meant to hit the nuclear plant, with all that implies. I learned a new word this week, "revanchist". It describes Putin to a t. It is defined as a foreign policy aimed at revenge and regaining lost territory. Putin is quite willing to grind Ukraine into the dust as long as he subjugates them, for having the effrontery to be an independent country.
ReplyDeleteI !keep reading people saying that we have to give Putin an off ramp, a face saving way to exit the war. But he has had any number of off ramps, diplomats have been turning themselves inside out trying to find him one. He's as interested in them as a driver barreling down the interstate at 120 mph.
"The Russians meant to hit the nuclear plant, with all that implies."
DeleteThat's really chilling. And even by the standards of Putin the supposed master of Realpolitik, that's a little crazy. A nuclear disaster at that plant wouldn't be confined to the borders of Ukraine; it could very easily cause much suffering and death among the Russian people. Granted that Putin probably cares little or nothing about how many Russians are killed, nevertheless it seems dissatisfaction among his own people has been percolating in the wake of this invasion, and a self-inflicted nuclear plant disaster could tip the balance in Russia against him.
One question I have now is who can depose Putin? In the Commie days, there was a politburo that had power to depose a sitting premiere. Not Stalin, but Khrushchev and so on often were replaced. There was some sort of decentralization of power. I think Putin is closer to Stalin in absolute power. Voting has become a show. Opponents are jailed. How ironic that the Soviet Union collapsed to cheers only to be replaced by something possibly worse. Gorbachev was a more competent and humane leader than either the drunken Yeltsin or the monstrous Putin. Perhaps, if the USSR held together under him, it could have transitioned into a social democracy closer to Sweden. As it was, it became more the property of a criminal mob. It's a shame they folded as we were at the height of neoliberal extremism and greed-is-good wealth worship.
DeleteI have read that Gorbachev has said that if Russia had been given some financial help following the breakup of the USSR the descent into Putin and kleptocracy might have been avoided. I don't know if that's true or not. I think there wouldn't have been much support for foreign aid to the former commies.
DeleteAt that time, one of the US senators from Pennsylvania was Harris Wofford, Democrat. I sent a letter saying that aid and effort should be directed toward Russia at that critical time to insure that democracy took solid root there. I received a reply saying that there was no funding for such things and all funding was needed for domestic purposes. Wofford is dead now and I didn't mourn when I heard. How much will this mess cost us now? That was one of the things that convinced me that the Democratic Party had lost their purpose.
DeleteI read some commentary recently that both Russia and China are better described as oligarchies than dictatorships. Also that one of the reasons that Putin sits 20-30 feet away from the rest of his cabinet is that he fears a Julius Caesar-style assassination.
DeleteWell he'd ought to know about assassination attempts. Bet he doesn't touch any doorknobs or stair railings, either. Plutonium salts or nerve agents were always his favorite means.
DeleteIf it's true that Russia is an oligarchy, then Putin isn't necessarily "president for life". Of course the shadowy others might be just as bad as he is. In which case, them removing him from office, by whatever means, wouldn't necessarily improve things.
DeletePolonium-210 rather than plutonium would be the more likely radioactive poisoning agent.
Delete