Energy supply: a world issue (1986)

From the Winter 1986-7 issue of the World Socialist

In any consideration of existing social problems the question of energy supply is of prime importance. It is self-evident that the task of providing decent conditions of life for the whole human population must include providing an adequate supply of energy. To solve the world's housing problem, including provision for heating, cooking and lighting, to expand world transport services, to increase world food production, to provide a sufficient supply of durable goods .for all people, plus the expansion of the means of production which these would require, will arguably involve a greatly increased supply of world energy.

But the problem is not simply one of supplying energy using any means available in an indiscriminate manner. The production of energy makes a great impact on the environment so it is important that the methods used should take this factor into account. What is required is an integrated world strategy of productive development which is aimed directly at the satisfaction of human needs and which can be socially controlled so as to avoid any destructive effects on the environment How does world capitalism deal with this problem? The short and obvious answer is that it does not deal with it nor can it do so.

From a practical point of view society has available a wide range of technical options and there are large reserves of skill, labour and materials yet at the same time we suffer from a chronic inability to take these up in a free and consciously regulated manner. It is not simply that under world capitalism there are economic barriers to producing enough energy for needs, but what does become available on the energy markets is produced by methods which in themselves generate further social problems. The present structure of world energy supply involves an unnecessary waste of useful resources; it is destructive of the environment; it produces severe secondary problems and it is fraught with dangers. This is the position that we are in now and world capitalism provides no foreseeable means for getting out of it. What has been the background to the problems associated with energy supply, which at the present time are worsening?

The existing structure of energy supply and the particular production methods which are currently in use has come into being within a definite framework of economic forces and a military development which has resulted from them. It is simply impossible to freely deploy the technical options which now exist in response to human needs within this existing economic and military framework.

So constraining have been these economic forces that in the more industrialised countries the most used energy source is still coal, the source on which the industrial revolution was based over two hundred years ago (see table). The relatively primitive method of burning non-renewable fossil fuels remains the cheapest energy source available to capitalist production. Despite the wide range of technical possibilities which now exist, it is still the case that hundreds of millions of people throughout the world either gather or buy firewood as their main energy source. Hydro-electric power is generated and since the end of World War II there has been the development of nuclear power but this was never selected as a desirable energy source in its own right. Nuclear power arose on the basis of arms development. It is still a marginal energy source (3 percent of world primary energy production in 1983) though its use is increasing. The use of solar-based techniques is even more marginal.

Nuclear Power: The Military Option

Yet over fifty years ago, in the 1930's, two simultaneous developments occurred which involved wide potentialities for the future of energy supply. One was the theoretical work on the splitting of the atom and the other was the discovery of the photo-voltaic mechanism which enabled sunlight to be converted into electricity. From a purely technical point of view, research and development could have gone in the direction either of nuclear power or solar cells. Notwithstanding the merits, technical or otherwise, of either option the reasons why solar technology was pushed into a backwater of research and development were both economic and military.

It was the implications for arms development which gave impetus to the nuclear programme. It was the Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb. This crash military project which in a perverse way indicates how quickly society can move when it becomes committed, involved tens of thousands of workers including the cream of scientific talent in the field of applied physics. By 1945 it had cost 2 billion dollars. The enormity of this effort can be understood in the context that in 1944 in America the value of the Gross National Product was 98 billion dollars.

After World War II this military application of nuclear technology did not diminish so that between 1945 and 1956 the Atomic Energy Weapons Programme had cost 15 billion dollars. This included the development of the Hydrogen Bomb and resulted in a huge scientific and industrial establishment committed to the nuclear arms programme. At this time companies such as Westinghouse and General Electric were manufacturing nuclear reactors mainly for the US Navy.

These developments in America were paralleled in other countries for the same military reasons so that in Russia, Britain and later France the same scientific/technical/industrial basis came into existence. It was on this basis that President Eisenhower introduced his so-called Atoms for Peace campaign in the 1950s. Essentially, the nuclear energy programme resulted from an attempt to capitalise on the immense cash resources which had been poured into the military use of nuclear technology.

Threat to vested interests

But this was not the only reason why research and development into the practical application of the photo-voltaic mechanism was not taken up. Solar technology was subject to attack by the powerful utilities in America whose industries were based on the use of fossil fuels. It is little known that in some places of climatic advantage, simple solar installations had been in use for some time. For example by 1897, of all the homes in Southern California 30 percent had solar water heaters. By 1940 in Southern Florida 80 percent of all new homes utilised solar water heaters. Once these installations, which were simply metal boilers under glass, were fixed in place, all they required was a cheap water supply plus the abundant southern sunshine over which no capitalist enterprise could hold a monopoly. These installations gave householders a degree of independence from the large capitalist utilities which were in the business of selling gas and also electricity generated from the burning of coal and oil.

The use of solar boilers for heating water was one thing but the possible practical application of the photo-voltaic cell for converting sunlight into electricity was a far more serious threat to the capitalist interests which were vested in the control and marketing of fossil fuels. Centralised power stations generating electricity from fossil fuels or nuclear sources enable capitalist enterprises or governments to maintain complete control of the energy source and the marketing of the products. With solar devices, once installed, the energy source is freely available. This is why particularly in America the public utilities launched an organised attack on research and development of solar energy, ranging from political lobbying to massive advertising campaigns.

In the face of the development of the nuclear arms programme and its spill-over into nuclear power and the pressure exerted by the heavily capitalised coal, oil and gas interests, the development of the highly adaptable and environmentally safe solar sources has been largely neglected. For example in the late 1970's, when the British government was spending upwards of £230 million per year on nuclear energy research it was spending only £11 million per year on renewable, solar-based technologies. During the seventies the Carter administration in America did express interest in solar techniques following a sharp increase in the price of oil and problems which nuclear power stations had encountered. This was set aside by the Reagan administration and funding for this kind of research was again reduced.

It is true that some research is being done by oil companies and other capitalist enterprises but this is inevitably suspect The bias arising from their profit-based interest in the subject will at best direct this research into channels determined by their economic interest

This interest is explicit in the following text from an advertisement:

The Arizona sun shines 296 days a year. APS solar engineers are working at the Sky Harbor Photo-Voltaic Solar Project to capture that remarkable energy source. We are proud to be the leaders in the development of solar energy.

22,000 solar cells in 80 arrays provides enough electricity for about 40 average sized homes. But Arizona has more than a million homes - plus factories - offices - plus farms - that need electricity.

Solar may supply a reasonable amount of electricity some time in the next century but it is simply not practical nor economical to meet Arizona's electrical needs to-day. This is why we are using coal and nuclear for large scale use now to meet Arizona's electrical needs.

Nuclear and coal now to meet Arizona's electrical needs.

Problems of present energy system

The factors which have determined the existing structure of the world's energy system have been the economic factors of the profit system in association with the military strategies adopted by the world's most powerful industrialised capitalist nations including state capitalist Russia.

There is now widespread concern about the problems arising from this system. Inevitably, the continued increase in the number of nuclear power stations results in a steady build-up of radioactivity in the environment, with an ever greater problem of how to deal with high level radioactive waste. Accidents like Chernobyl with their horrendous results are part of the existing nuclear energy programme.

Sections of the scientific community and environmentalists are also extremely concerned over the effects of the continuous release of carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere as a result of burning fossil fuels such as gas, oil and coal. Accurate records of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show that concentrations have increased from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 340 parts per million in 1982. Burning fossil fuels also releases into the atmosphere sulphur which is associated now with the destructive effects of acid rain including the destruction of forests in the northern hemisphere, the killing off of life in lakes and rivers, and general soil deterioration.

Together with this, a report issued by the National Science Foundation, Washington, produced calculations which show that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would lead to a heating of the surface of the oceans and the land by an average of about 4 watts per square metre, which in practice would mean a change from about 1.6 degrees to 4.5 degrees on different parts of the planet's surface. It is argued that the climatic consequences would be catastrophic, with fertile arid zones becoming arid deserts. This refers to what is now described as "the greenhouse effect". Even allowing that there is disagreement over the possible consequences of this greenhouse effect it would be foolish to ignore even the most pessimistic forecasts which are being issued by some sections of the scientific community.

Merits of renewable energy sources

Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University, California, as well as others have argued strongly that the buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of fossil fuels should be urgently averted. They have emphasised the need to replace the use of fossil fuels with the use of renewable sources of energy such as wind power, wave power and photo-voltaic devices. The need for global consensus as a basis for carrying this through is also stressed by these scientists, though they are pessimistic about achieving this.

The advantages of these renewable sources have been summed up in a Ford Foundation Report as follows:-

Direct Solar Energy. Unlike all other forms of energy available to humans in large quantities, solar radiation is pure energy which is not associated with any material. As a result some types of solar energy systems, once constructed,can maintain a constant inventory of facilities and materials, releasing nothing but useful and waste energy at the same rate as the absorbed solar radiation. For example, operating solar electric cells convert some of the incident solar radiation directly into electrical energy and reradiate, reflect or discharge the rest. The process produces no waste materials that must be accumulated or released to the environment... In contrast use of fossil fuels or any type of nuclear energy requires the addition of mass (fuel) to an energy supply system and either the accumulation of increasing stockpiles of waste products (such as ashes, sulphur, carbon dioxide, or radioactive isotopes) within the system or their release to the environment.

The merits of solar-based technologies and the need for world cooperation in dealing with the problems of energy supply have also been stressed by Janet Ramage in her book Energy—A Guide Book. In her view, the challenge of solar techniques is one of utilising the energy which the sun delivers to the earth at a rate equal to nearly 20,000 times its primary energy consumption and that this challenge presents itself as a technique for collection and conversion. Postulating such a technical solution as a result of co-operation on a world scale she states:

How about a world-wide electric grid? It could use underground and ocean floor super conducting cables, and the power would come from solar farms in the world's major deserts, Ocean Thermal Electric Conversion plants in tropical waters, and wave power stations and wind turbine arrays in remote regions. No atmospheric pollution, no radioactive wastes, no use of valuable agricultural land or precious water. There are probably no insuperable technical problems. There is just one question. How do we get there from here?

Urgent need for world co-operation

This vital question is essentially about the reasons why the existing world capitalist system cannot take up the technical possibilities which now exist for the setting up of a safe and adequate world energy system. This question also takes us out of the sphere of applied science and technology and inevitably into the sphere of world economics and politics. The urgent need for world co-operation in dealing with the problems of world energy supply cannot be realised within the social productive relations and the existing economic and military framework through which these operate. Continued world capitalist society means inevitably that the world will remain staked out as an armed camp and the divisions will remain those of competing national economic interests. The organisation of world society will remain subject to the national economic and military strategies which express the prevailing national capitalist class interests. In the field of energy supply, as in every other field, such resources, skills and production methods which are taken up will be determined by the economic imperatives of the market system or consistent with the existing national economic or military strategies. It is completely impossible under capitalism for humanity to use the earth's resources for the benefit of all people, and it is equally impossible for it to deploy the accumulated knowledge, the skills and the techniques of production which now exist in a direct relationship with human needs on a basis of worldwide co-operation.

Yet there is in fact no barrier presented by any alleged inability of people to co-operate in their mutual interests. On the contrary, this ability to cooperate is universal. What is required is for this inherent ability to co-operate to be mobilised politically as a world movement acting independently of the existing economic, political and military power structures.

This movement already exists as the movement for world socialism, and it is vital that those who see the need for world co-operation in dealing with problems in the interests of all humanity should join its ranks to swell its voice of sanity and contribute to the work of preparing practical programmes of action which could be implemented once its political objective is achieved. This political objective is one of gaining political control with a view to taking the means of production and the earth's resources out of the hands of the world's capitalist class and placing them at the free disposal of the whole world's community.

Establishing a safe world energy system

How could world socialism set about the work of establishing a world energy system which would be adequate for the material needs of the world community but which could also work within the natural systems of the environment in a non-destructive way? Two factors have to be accepted. First, the overall amount of energy supply required in socialism as part of its general strategy of productive development would be immense, arguably greater than the amount which capitalism currently produces.

There would of course be great savings and a more efficient use of available energy supplies compared with what happens today under capitalism. Socialism would have no difficulty in adopting the various techniques of conservation which are well known. Moreover, under capitalism, a vast amount of energy fuels the world's military machines and its armaments production, and these amounts would become available for human needs. The anarchic pattern of capitalist trade involves more waste of energy whereas socialism would be to rationalise world distribution on a world, regional and local basis. At the present time there are millions of employments which may be necessary for the market system but which would be unnecessary in a society organised solely for human needs. These employments are serviced partly by the energy industry so this represents further amounts of energy which could become available for useful consumption. But notwithstanding these savings, it can still be argued that the strategy of productive development which would be necessary in socialism to establish a structure of production adequate for needs would initially require a vastly increased energy supply as for example with the need to solve the world's housing problem, even if a stable level would eventually be reached.

Secondly, world socialism would have to begin with the structure of energy supply which it had taken over. It could not scrap this overnight and this means that some production methods which may be considered undesirable would have to be used for a time. We can envisage that world socialism would have to begin the' work of adapting the existing system, phasing out its undesirable features whilst at the same time expanding the structure using methods which have been democratically agreed.

In this work socialism would be able to use the planet as a single resource held in common by all people. This means that socialism would be able to use the various geographical advantages which may exist in any location as part of an integrated world energy system.

Without anticipating any final decisions which would be made as to the particular technologies or combination of technologies which would be adapted and developed in socialism it is worth noting that the various solar-based technologies which at present impress themselves on some sections of the scientific community as being desirable would be well suited to socialism.

Removal of economic barriers

One point to emphasise is that with regard to any technique which might be developed, socialism would not be bound by the economics of market competition to use methods which embodied the least amounts of labour in their production. Nor could arms development play any possible part in determining the technology which is taken up. Though the solar-based technologies do not at the present time present themselves as the most labour efficient methods of energy production in relation to energy output, this would not be a barrier to their development in socialism in the circumstances where they were deemed to be the most socially desirable methods. Also, given the resources which socialism would be able to freely apply to the research and development of the solar-based technologies they do hold the promise of being suitable techniques for one important reason which can be added to the fact that they are environmentally safe. It is self-evident that in its various forms such as wind and wave power and direct sunlight, solar energy is available to the planet in vast quantities as part of a self-perpetuating natural system which requires no material fuel. The problem of solar technologies is one of effective collection and conversion into usable forms of energy such as electricity. What this could mean in practice is that once the social effort necessary for setting up the network of installations required for an integrated solar-based world energy system had been undertaken, this system would be available for permanent collection and conversion requiring only routine maintenance. This looks forward in a very practical way to a position of society whereby the problem of energy supply could be solved on a permanent basis. It could operate with a durable system of world-wide installations requiring no added materials except for those necessary for routine maintenance.

Moreover, the solar-based technologies can be highly adaptable in the scale of their use. They can include what Janet Ramage has envisaged as a single world-wide grid supplied with electricity generated by large and permanent power stations in different world locations. But solar techniques can also be used on a small scale with locally placed devices dedicated to specialised local functions. This can be single installations providing heat or electricity for single homes, factories or workshops.

It should be stressed further that the technical possibilities are wider than those which have been mentioned. There are the immense possibilities presented by geo-thermal techniques. In looking outwards at the solar sources we can forget that beneath our feet there exists a core of molten heat which could be tapped as it already has been in Iceland and other places. In the long run, humanity's greatest productive resource lies in the innovative genius of our species. The essential problem is one of how to establish a society in which this genius can find its fullest expression directly for human needs, and to answer the question of why this genius remains so constrained within the existing national economic, military and political structures.

World Socialism: the necessary precondition

What emerges from the existing structure of world energy supply— the fact that it is totally inadapted to meet the needs of humanity, plus the fact that it is so destructive of the world environment — is that these problems do not present themselves primarily as practical or technical problems. These are essentially economic and political problems which raise from the class relationships of production in present world capitalist society. The existing methods of energy production are not simply practical means of making energy available, they operate as deployed capital with the object of accumulating more capital. The primary object of the existing energy system is not one of generating useful energy but one of generating profits for a privileged minority. Therefore the practical work of setting up an adequate world energy system which would serve all human needs directly must be preceded by the practical work of establishing the only society which would be capable of doing it

Properly defined, the problem of energy supply is the problem of world capitalist society therefore the solution must be defined as the establishment of world socialism.

Pieter Lawrence (Britain)

Editorial: The struggle for oil (1948)

Editorial from the September 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The countries of the world are faced with the vital problem of obtaining sufficient oil to meet the expanding demands of transport, industry and mechanised agriculture. Oil is also needed in vast quantities for armies, navies and air forces, and the problem is not only that of obtaining sufficient in peace time but of knowing that the supply will continue in time of war. During the second world war Germany obtained the bulk of her supplies by developing chemical processes for producing oil from coal. Mr. A. D. Cummings, M.Sc., writing in “Discovery” (February, 1948), states that none of the known processes can yet compete commercially with natural oil.

“As now used, these processes are not an economically successful solution to the problem . . . the petrol obtained from them still costs at least twice as much as the natural oil, which has been refined and transported to its destination. Using hard coal it takes nearly 5 tons of coal to make a ton of petrol; using brown coal it takes 17 tons of raw coal from the mine; moreover, the capital cost of oil-from-coal plants is enormous. Only a country whose need was desperate would contemplate using them in the present circumstances. The processes have no future until natural oil resources dwindle even more rapidly than they are doing at present.”

A small amount of synthetic oil was being produced in this country before the war, but according to Mr. Cummings the British Government decided then against developing it for the needs of the coming war, preferring to rely on supplies of natural oil from abroad. Efforts are now being made to improve the processes and it is of course possible that they may become competitors with natural oil if oil prices continue to rise.

In the meantime consumption of petrol is increasing by leaps and bounds, and the problem of securing increased production and of controlling the petroleum regions becomes more acute. U.S.A. is still by far the greatest producer. In 1947 the United States oil wells produced nearly two-thirds of total world production, but so great is the consumption that the U.S. is now an importer of oil.

According to figures published in the last annual report of the Shell Transport and Trading Co., United States production in 1947 was about 2,000 million barrels. Next comes Venezuela with 435 million, the Russia with 200 million, Iran 155 million, Arabia 90 million and Mexico 56 million.

It will be observed that Russia, with a population greater than that of U.S.A., produces only one-tenth as much petrol. Even if production in Rumania, Hungary and other countries on Russia’s western border is added to Russia’s own resources, the total is still only about 240 million barrels compared with U.S.A.’s 2,000 million. It is true that in Russia very little is used in private motoring, and that every effort is made to develop coal and hydro-electric schemes and thus reduce the demand for petrol, but notwithstanding these alternatives Russia’s need of oil is acute and growing; which explains their anxiety to gain control of further supplies in Iran and other countries. But America too is vitally interested in oil from the Middle East. it is not merely that America needs more oil at home, but that American capital invested in Arabia, Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East calls for “protection,” and that the American Navy in Mediterranean, waters requires local supplies. In December, 1946, when American interests were negotiating for oil concessions in Saudi Arabia, it was stated that the major part of the oil produced in Arabia by the Arabian-American Oil. Co. “is going directly to the United States Navy” (Daily Telegraph, 12/12/46).

Western European countries, including Britain, are more than ever dependant on Middle East oil. As Elizabeth Monroe states in the Observer (11/7/48), “the chief interest of Western Europe is no longer the Suez Canal. The main post-war interests of the Western Powers lie further east. The prime one is to preserve the great oil fields on the Persian Gulf and Tigris from falling into hands that would deny their output to Westerners.”

The “hands” in question are of course those of Russia.

In passing it is, however, interesting to note a report from New York “that the United States is negotiating for the purchase of a substantial shareholding in the Suez Canal Co.” (Daily Telegraph, 25/6/48.)

Russia’s interest in trying to prevent American-British domination of Middle East oil resources is obvious. While Middle East production as a whole is still only about 10 per cent. of total world production and only about one-seventh of production in the United States, it is rapidly expanding. If Russia could get into that area, even if Russian activity were to be confined to Northern Iran, her oil problem would be greatly eased. Looking further ahead, there is the certainty that the Middle East will in a few years have doubled or trebled its output.

There have from, time to time been forecasts of the early exhaustion of oil reserves, particularly in U.S.A. According to Sir F. Godber, Chairman of the Shell Co., there is no present danger. Speaking at the annual meeting he said that in the past 20 years continuous discoveries have led to an increase in established world resources, from 23,000 million barrels which was the estimate in 1928, to 72,000 million which is the latest estimate. Even in U.S.A. there is no danger of reserves soon being exhausted. Sir F. Godber says that ” the most conservative estimates of the American Petroleum Institute show that in the United States, in spite, of the constantly increasing rate of consumption, the ratio of reserves to current production is being maintained.” (Financial Times, 22/6/48.)

Nevertheless the Middle Eastern countries, with their enormous undeveloped oil reserves, their cheapness of production, are destined to be a centre of acute, Imperial rivalries for many years to come.

Britain’s energy trilemma (2026)

From the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

The approach of the UK government to energy is characterised by a trilemma. It tries to balance out the need to reduce carbon emissions, supporting national energy security and control the costs of the transition. The hidden premise behind all of these, is the class nature of society and the need for the government to negotiate with the owners of energy generating resources, without threatening their control of their property and securing a tribute from them to allow the change.

People speak about the costs of transferring to renewables. Initially this was largely down to the fact that the infrastructure for generating energy through fossil fuels already existed. The cost of energy, like any commodity, depends on how much labour it typically takes to produce it. Capital, that is past labour, reduces the need for fresh effort. So, no good or process has an inherent cost, just the relative cost of how much society is geared towards carrying out the activity.

Renewables and other sources of generation originally appear more costly compared to oil and gas, but that is only because the means of obtaining and using the latter are already in place. To build a renewable energy network within a capitalist society means persuading the owners of capital that there will be profits to be made in carrying out that activity: but the structural advantage fossil fuels have means that the markets, of their own accord, will not promote this change.

UK government has created designed markets. Renewable Obligation Certificates were used, as a means of transferring payments from people who obtain their electricity from fossil fuels to renewable companies. These are still supported by the government, but the scheme is closed, and has been replaced by Contracts for Difference (CFDs): the government auctions off licences to supply energy at a fixed cost, the supplier will repay any excess income, or be paid if market prices for electricity fall below the fixed ‘strike price’. This removes volatility from the market, and allows capitalists to invest with an almost guaranteed rate of return.

Even then, there have been auctions where few firms applied at the stated strike price, and the government has had to raise their offer in order to entice more investment.

Finally, there is a cost of ‘balancing the grid’, paying producers to stop producing or start producing, to offset the unbalanced and intermittent nature of renewables (or if, say, the wind is generating energy too far away from where the grid can carry it to be used adequately). This is expected to reach a cost of £8 billion per year by 2030. Effectively transferring profits to the energy producers via taxation.

The overall market price tends to be set by the most expensive resource, which in the case of energy, is unsubsidised gas on the world market. The loss of Russian gas from the market (and the wider shocks of the Russia-Ukraine war) has pushed the cost of gas up, which means, overall, we have seen significant upward pressure on energy bills, which in the end hit the consumer. Those on fixed incomes will bear the brunt, whilst workers in employment will struggle to pass on the burden to their employers.

This isn’t helped by the anti-democratic approach governments take. In order to hide their powerlessness in the face of the capitalists’ interest, they simply plough on with the policy behind closed doors. The system of subsidy and incentive is opaque (at best) alongside the complicated character of the energy markets that have grown up. Most people will only see the cost of heating their homes going up.

Into that space step voices which claim climate change is a hoax, that subsidies to renewables are making electricity more expensive and that if we just resumed extracting fossil fuels bills would come down. Such voices have the backing of some in the energy industry, or other capitalists who rely on cheap energy for their operations. They would put immediate profits against the cost of the effects of climate change (or even gambling that the costs won’t affect them primarily).

In the meantime, the changes already made have been impressive. In 1991, according to the National Grid, only 2 percent of electricity came from renewable sources compared to over 50 percent by 2023. Coal has been practically eliminated as an electricity generation source. The UK has a target of <50gCO2 per kW hour, in 2023 the average was 140g. Nonetheless, total emissions were 50 percent of those in 1990.

Total renewable energy generation needs to double by 2030 to stay on track. Most of that, apparently, is planned. This will be helped by the tumbling of the costs of renewable generation on a global scale, partly due to China’s massive investment in renewable energy. Although over half of China’s electricity comes from coal, growth of coal generation there is slowing, and renewables are expanding faster. This enables China to export renewable technology. For the first time, this year, less than 50 percent of a growing electricity output worldwide came from non-renewable sources.

This fall in costs, though, presents a problem for the subsidised capitalists, as it means that overall renewable electricity generation will never be as profitable as they would hope.

As we build socialism, we will be confronted by the context of climate change, and will inherit the energy system as it is now. Obviously, we would be able collectively and democratically to discontinue some wasteful branches of energy use, but we would still need to heat homes and provide power for the projects we do want to carry out. The Royal Society has carried out research that suggests all of the UK’s energy needs could be met from wind and solar alone (with sufficient capacity for storage in the form of hydrogen).

The issues of energy generation and climate change are solvable, even within capitalism, but the need is urgent and worldwide democratic co-operation offers us the best and speediest chance and that will require ending the tribute to capital.

Pik Smeet

Afghanistan and the new Silk Road (2001)

From the November 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following testimony by an oil and gas corporation executive (of Union Oil of California) to the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the US House of Representatives’ Committee on International Relations on 12 February 1998 throws much light on the strategic importance of Afghanistan to the Western capitalist powers and goes a long way to explain why they have gone to war there.

Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation. Unocal is one of the world’s leading energy resource and project development companies. Our activities are focused on three major regions – Asia, Latin America and the US Gulf of Mexico. In Asia and the US Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely, and I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping US policy.

Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region, its resources and US policy:

• The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas.
• The need for US support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan.
• The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

For more than 2,000 years, Central Asia has been a meeting ground between Europe and Asia, the site of ancient east-west trade routes collectively called the Silk Road and, at various points in history, a cradle of scholarship, culture and power. It is also a region of truly enormous natural resources, which are revitalizing cross-border trade, creating positive political interaction and stimulating regional cooperation. These resources have the potential to recharge the economies of neighboring countries and put entire regions on the road to prosperity.

About 100 years ago, the international oil industry was born in the Caspian/Central Asian region with the discovery of oil. In the intervening years, under Soviet rule, the existence of the region’s oil and gas resources was generally known, but only partially or poorly developed.

As we near the end of the 20th century, history brings us full circle. With political barriers falling, Central Asia and the Caspian are once again attracting people from around the globe who are seeking ways to develop and deliver its bountiful energy resources to the markets of the world.

The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves, much of them located in the Caspian Sea basin itself. Proven natural gas reserves within Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region’s total oil reserves may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil – enough to service Europe’s oil needs for 11 years. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day (44 million tons per year [Mt/y]).

By 2010, Western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day (Mb/d) – an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about five percent of the world’s total oil production, and almost 20 percent of oil produced among non-OPEC countries.

One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region’s vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. There are few, if any, other areas of the world where there can be such a dramatic increase in the supply of oil and gas to the world market. The solution seems simple: build a “new” Silk Road. Implementing this solution, however, is far from simple. The risks are high, but so are the rewards.

Finding and Building Routes to World Markets

One of the main problems is that Central Asia is isolated. The region is bounded on the north by the Arctic Circle, on the east and west by vast land distances, and on the south by a series of natural obstacles – mountains and seas – as well as political obstacles, such as conflict zones or sanctioned countries.

This means that the area’s natural resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws – and even the courts – are dynamic and changing. Business commitments can be rescinded without warning, or they can be displaced by new geopolitical realities.

In addition, a chief technical obstacle we face in transporting oil is the region’s existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the region’s pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east.

Depending wholly on this infrastructure to export Central Asia oil is not practical. Russia currently is unlikely to absorb large new quantities of “foreign” oil, is unlikely to be a significant market for energy in the next decade, and lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

Certainly there is no easy way out of Central Asia. If there are to be other routes, in other directions, they must be built.

Two major energy infrastructure projects are seeking to meet this challenge. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, or CPC, plans to build a pipeline west from the Northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk. From Novorossisk, oil from this line would be transported by tanker through the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean and world markets.

The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies including four American companies – Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. It will follow one or both of two routes west from Baku. One line will angle north and cross the North Caucasus to Novorossisk. The other route would cross Georgia and extend to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea port of Supsa. This second route may be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future; nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

Unocal believes that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Just as Central Asia was the meeting ground between Europe and Asia in centuries past, it is again in a unique position to potentially service markets in both of these regions – if export routes to these markets can be built. Let’s take a look at some of the potential markets.

Western Europe

Western Europe is a tough market. It is characterized by high prices for oil products, an aging population, and increasing competition from natural gas. Between 1995 and 2010, we estimate that demand for oil will increase from 14.1 Mb/d (705 Mt/y) to 15.0 Mb/d (750 Mt/y), an average growth rate of only 0.5 percent annually. Furthermore, the region is already amply supplied from fields in the Middle East, North Sea, Scandinavia and Russia. Although there is perhaps room for some of Central Asia’s oil, the Western European market is unlikely to be able to absorb all of the production from the Caspian region.

Central and Eastern Europe

Central and Eastern Europe markets do not look any better. Although there is increased demand for oil in the region’s transport sector, natural gas is gaining strength as a competitor. Between 1995 and 2010, demand for oil is expected to increase by only half a million barrels per day, from 1.3 Mb/d (67 Mt/y) to 1.8 Mb/d (91.5 Mt/y). Like Western Europe, this market is also very competitive. In addition to supplies of oil from the North Sea, Africa and the Middle East, Russia supplies the majority of the oil to this region.

The Domestic NIS Market

The growth in demand for oil also will be weak in the Newly Independent States (NIS). We expect Russian and other NIS markets to increase demand by only 1.2 percent annually between 1997 and 2010.

Asia/Pacific

In stark contrast to the other three markets, the Asia/Pacific region has a rapidly increasing demand for oil and an expected significant increase in population. Prior to the recent turbulence in the various Asian/Pacific economies, we anticipated that this region’s demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, Unocal stands behind its long-term estimates.

Energy demand growth will remain strong for one key reason: the region’s population is expected to grow by 700 million people by 2010.

It is in everyone’s interests that there be adequate supplies for Asia’s increasing energy requirements. If Asia’s energy needs are not satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving prices upwards everywhere.

The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to satisfy the energy needs of nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions – with several variations.

Export Routes

East to China: Prohibitively Long?

One option is to go east across China. But this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers to central China – as well as a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. Even with these formidable challenges, China National Petroleum Corporation is considering building a pipeline east from Kazakhstan to Chinese markets.

Unocal had a team in Beijing just last week for consultations with the Chinese. Given China’s long-range outlook and its ability to concentrate resources to meet its own needs, China is almost certain to build such a line. The question is what will the costs of transporting oil through this pipeline be and what netback will the producers receive.

South to the Indian Ocean: A Shorter Distance to Growing Markets

A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of US sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.

Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.

The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.

This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project – which is similar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline – is about US$2.5 billion.

There is considerable international and regional political interest in this pipeline. Asian crude oil importers, particularly from Japan, are looking to Central Asia and the Caspian as a new strategic source of supply to satisfy their desire for resource diversity. The pipeline benefits Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expanding and highly prospective hard currency markets. The pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development. Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings for all of them. We know that the different factions in Afghanistan understand the importance of the pipeline project for their country, and have expressed their support of it.

A recent study for the World Bank states that the proposed pipeline from Central Asia across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea would provide more favorable netbacks to oil producers through access to higher value markets than those currently being accessed through the traditional Baltic and Black Sea export routes.

This is evidenced by the netback values producers will receive as determined by the World Bank study. For West Siberian crude, the netback value will increase by nearly $2.00 per barrel by going south to Asia. For a producer in western Kazakhstan, the netback value will increase by more than $1 per barrel by going south to Asia as compared to west to the Mediterranean via the Black Sea.

Natural Gas Export

Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link a specific natural resource with the nearest viable market. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. As with all projects being considered in this region, the following projects face geo-political challenges, as well as market issues.

Unocal and the Turkish company, Koc Holding A.S., are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to the Turkey market. The proposed Eurasia Natural Gas Pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Sixty percent of this proposed gas pipeline would follow the same route as the oil pipeline proposed to run from Baku to Ceyhan. Of course, the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

Last October, the Central Asia Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline that will link Turkmenistan’s vast natural gas reserves in the Dauletabad Field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. An independent evaluation shows that the field’s resources are adequate for the project’s needs, assuming production rates rising over time to 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day for 30 years or more.

In production since 1983, the Dauletabad Field’s natural gas has been delivered north via Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia to markets in the Caspian and Black Sea areas. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, travelling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan. A proposed extension would link with the existing Sui pipeline system, moving gas to near New Delhi, where it would connect with the existing HBJ pipeline. By serving these additional volumes, the extension would enhance the economics of the project, leading to overall reductions in delivered natural gas costs for all users and better margins. As currently planned, the CentGas pipeline would cost approximately $2 billion. A 400-mile extension into India could add $600 million to the overall project cost.

As with the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline, CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place. For the project to advance, it must have international financing, government-to-government agreements and government-to-consortium agreements.

Conclusion

The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region’s residents and provide energy for growth for Europe and Asia.

The impact of these resources on US commercial interests and US foreign policy is also significant and intertwined. Without peaceful settlement of conflicts within the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan.

US assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business’ success. We encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts US government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits US influence in the region.

Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a “new” Silk Road, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand – once again making Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia.

Thank you.

(Was to be found at: http://www.house.gov/international_relations/105th/ap/wsap212982.htm. Now not operational)

The new source of energy (1956)

From the October 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

“In recent years physicists have found methods of producing radio-activity artificially.

Under suitable treatment many substances which are not in themselves radio-active, and which therefore do not disintegrate of their own accord, can be made to emit radio-active rays and particles whereby the atomic nucleus is transformed and finally destroyed—A relatively small inout of energy can lead to . . . the emission of much more energy than was put in ... We have potentially at our disposal an almost unlimited store of energy which, suitably unleashed, can have a tremendous effect on our economy and civilisation.

Used for destructive purposes, it can wipe out the human race; used as a source of industrial power it can confer limitless benefits on mankind.” (Power, Martin Ruhemann, D.Phil. Sigma Books.).

What price energy? (1986)

From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The main problem facing humanity when it comes to satisfying its needs is not so much resources — either mineral resources or food resources — as energy. Resources are virtually infinite, the problem is to find the energy to get at them. For most of human existence on the planet Earth the main source of energy for production was the energy of human beings and domestic animals, supplemented by various mechanical devices and by limited amounts of wind and water power. Then, beginning in the 18th century, came the widespread use of steam power (based on burning wood and later coal to heat the water) and. at the beginning of the 20th century. the internal combustion engine (based on burning another fossil fuel. oil).

What will probably turn out to have been the greatest technological advance made by humans since the introduction of agriculture was the discovery of how to generate and use electricity in the second half of the 19th century. Electricity is a form of energy that can be generated by mechanical means (by turbines) and then later transformed back again into mechanical energy to be applied to production when and where required. It can be generated on a large scale (in power stations) or on a small scale (as by windmills and waterfalls) and so can be adapted to various different ways and combinations of ways of living.

Most of the electricity used in the world today is generated by huge steam-powered turbines in which the steam is still, overwhelmingly. raised by burning fossil fuels but also, increasingly, by the heat given off when atoms of uranium and now plutonium are split (nuclear fission). Electricity generated by using turbines turned by water, wind or tidal power is still relatively marginal. From an ideal point of view, burning fossil fuels is an irrational way of using these natural resources since this wastes a large part of their potential as useless and harmful gases.

Nuclear fission, too. is not the long-term solution to humanity’s energy problem since it has been well described as "the dirtiest and most unpleasant method of releasing energy that man has ever discovered". It merits this description because, besides heat, the process of splitting the atom releases lethal radioactivity which can escape into the atmosphere (as at Chernobyl) and which, in any case, remains in the waste products. Nuclear fission reactors should be quickly phased out.if not stopped completely, in any rationally-organised human society, rather than being extended to meet the problem in the supply of fossil fuels. Certainly there can be no humane justification for embarking on the mad idea of building more and more "breeder" reactors (so called because they produce radioactive plutonium which can be re-used as a nuclear fuel).

So what, in a rational world of common ownership and production solely for use, could be the solution to the energy problem? In the light of present-day scientific knowledge. there are two main candidates for the not-too-distant future: solar power and nuclear fusion. Solar energy, in its natural form of heat and light, is the product of nuclear fusion, the sun being a sort of fusion reactor in which atoms of hydrogen are continually being fused into becoming helium, a process which generates huge amounts of heat and light energy. The sun is in fact the source of the energy that sustains all life on Earth (its rays being converted, in the first instance, by plants into chemical energy which serves as food for animals including humans); solar energy is thus nature’s source of energy. It is also the indirect source of some of the other forms of natural energy that humans have been able to harness such as wind and water power. If humans could find a way of harnessing solar energy, then our energy problem would be solved.

Solar batteries, which directly convert the sun’s light rays into electrical energy, already exist and are used in satellites and space vehicles. But an efficient method of doing this at Earth ground-level — where the sun’s rays are much less powerful — has yet to be devised, as the experimental batteries being developed use up more energy than they create. Further research into this is still necessary but a world socialist society would be able to direct resources, such as those that will be released by abandoning all military research, towards it. Another possibility would be to launch a satellite that would function as a power station, converting the sun’s light rays into energy and beaming this down to Earth. But once again until more research has been done, more energy would be needed to get such a power station into orbit than it would initially produce.

At the moment the only practical way of using solar energy, apart from small scale uses in particularly sunny parts of the world, is to use the heat from the sun to raise steam to drive electricity-generating turbines. Such power stations using mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays could be situated in sunny, desert areas and linked to a grid that would allow the electricity to be transported to whatever part of the world it was needed. Since, however, considerable amounts of electricity are lost in transport, such a change-over from fossil fuel and nuclear fission power stations to solar power stations. to be most effective, would demand a corresponding re-allocation of industry to the sunnier parts of the world.

In view of the geo-political considerations involved under capitalism in such a re-allocation of industry — and so also of economic and political power — a change to solar power on a massive scale is unlikely to occur while capitalism lasts. If capitalism is allowed to continue, it is much more likely that the states where industry is currently concentrated will choose to develop nuclear fission power stations, including breeder reactors, in these areas as a way of maintaining their economic and political power. This is one example of how capitalism prevents a rational solution to humanity’s energy problem and a reason why anti-nuclear protestors. justified as their protests are. are unlikely to succeed as long as capitalism lasts.

Nuclear fusion has nothing in common with nuclear fission beyond the fact that both are examples of nuclear engineering. Nuclear fusion is. as its name suggests, a process whereby atoms of the lightest chemical elements are fused together (as in the sun) as opposed to fission when atoms of the heaviest elements are split. Both processes release energy in the form of heat but fission also leaves a radioactive waste material, some of it extremely dangerous, fusion does not. and so to this extent is a clean source of energy.

It is true that, as the equipment used to contain the fusion process will become radioactive, fusion power will not be entirely clean, though the levels of radioactivity involved would be nowhere near those caused by the process of nuclear fission. It is also true that the technically-easiest process, now in the experimental stage, does involve the production of a radioactive gas. but other possible fusion processes could avoid this. If the technical problems involved in these latter can be solved, humanity will have at its disposal a relatively clean and virtually unlimited source of energy since the raw material — an isotope of hydrogen, deuterium — exists in abundance in the sea. to the extent of 1 gramme in every 30 litres.

Since neither solar batteries nor fusion power yet exist in a form that can be applied to production, it is clear that if socialism is established in the near future it is going to have to rely on existing ways of generating electricity, essentially burning oil and coal even if. ideally, this is not the best way of using these resources. Since socialist society will need all the energy it can muster to clean up the initial problem of world poverty and hunger it will inherit from capitalism, on present day knowledge it may well not be able to afford not to use any nuclear fission reactors in existence at the time, dirty and dangerous though they are — though, freed from the profit and cost considerations of capitalism they could be and would be made less dangerous than they are now. It will be a question of deciding to use them temporarily to help eliminate the more pressing evil of deaths from world hunger, disease and poverty. But the aim will have to be to take such reactors out of service as soon as these immediate problems have been cleared up. Nuclear fission reactors have no long-term or even a medium-term future in socialism.

As to whether the substitute that will sooner or later be necessary for power stations based on burning coal or oil will be solar power or nuclear fusion, only future socialist society can decide but since certain forms of power can be applied straight away this would seem to be the obvious choice at the moment.

Adam Buick

Nuclear questions (1982)

From the November 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is now three years since the nuclear “accident" at Three Mile Island. The full effects on the health of people working or living in the area will perhaps never be known. The release of radiation was not effectively monitored and in any case most of the resulting sickness and deaths will take up to 20 years to occur. This lack of information has enabled speculation by both the supporters and opponents of nuclear energy to obscure the real lessons of the accident.

Three years on we are still learning the extent of the disaster. In July the first examination of the fuel rods in the core of the reactor was made possible using special cameras lowered through a screw hole in the container vessel. This revealed that the uranium oxide fuel had in fact melted, which means that the nuclear reactor core was far closer to a "meltdown” than had earlier been presumed. The massive heat necessary for the melting of the fuel, over 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, was all but sufficient to have also melted the container vessel which encased the radioactive core. Had this happened the highly radioactive molten mass would have been totally exposed, with consequences so disastrous that it is extremely unlikely that they could have been dealt with.

Not surprisingly, there is now a lot of concern at the Central Electricity Generating Board's proposals to build a Pressure Water Reactor (PWR) at Sizewell in Suffolk. Three Mile Island was also a PWR and Sizewell will be the first of this type to be built in this country. The enquiry into these proposals begins in January and as many as two thousand individuals and groups have lodged objections. But the enquiry will not deal with the real problems of nuclear energy. It will look into the scientific, technological or engineering issues, and perhaps consider the architectural or even the employment effects. It will not look at the question of how a society based on class monopoly of the production of wealth can handle such potentially dangerous technology while serving the interests of a small minority of the population.

There are three areas that have to be looked at: radioactivity anti its effects; the design and construction of nuclear plant; and nuclear waste.

Radioactivity

All radiation is dangerous to human health. There is no accepted safe level, whether it be the “natural" radiation from the environment or whether it is the result of human labour. Although there are disagreements over the effects of low levels of radiation, the International Commission for Radiological Protection (ICRP) accepts that all levels of radiation are liable to cause damage to health. The guidelines laid down by the ICRP are accepted by the nuclear industry. Consequently, when governments or other institutions fix a "safe" level of radiation they are really saying that so many deaths or so much sickness is acceptable.

At present this "safe" limit is fixed for the average person at 0.5 rem per year — three times the radiation emitted from the normal background conditions. This figure is partly arbitrary, based on how many increased deaths or illnesses are acceptable for running capitalism; the "safe" level is derived more from the estimates of what is necessary for operating a profitable nuclear industry than from the estimates of what is desirable in terms of human health. Nuclear power stations, even when working under normal conditions, need to emit a certain level of radiation into the environment only because the cost of overcoming the problems would affect profits.

The main difference between the working conditions of nuclear reactors and the conditions on, say, a building site are that the effects of radiation can take many years before becoming apparent. Radiation induced cancer may cut a worker’s life by 30 years, but the death may not occur until 20 years after contamination. On the other hand, the effects of an accident on a building site or in a factory are usually immediately noticeable. But even when the effects are known, the question is what level of human sacrifice is acceptable when priority must be given to profitable production? Even when governments introduce legislation to restrict the use of potentially dangerous materials or practices, the incentive for employers to cut corners means that constant surveillance is necessary. Nuclear power stations have been under tighter inspection than most industries, and yet Three Mile Island and other, less disastrous nuclear accidents have shown that safety problems remain.

Design and construction

The Marshall Study Group Report on the Integrity of Pressurised Water Reactor Pressure Vessels was published in April by a group which openly supports the nuclear programme. (Dr. Walter Marshall was at the time of the report the Chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and is now the head of the Central Electricity Generating Board.) It shows the close association between concerns about the safety of the container vessels housing the radioactive core of a reactor and the problems of profitability.

In the PWRs there is no real means of preventing a large release of radiation if the vessel is badly fractured. As far back as 1969 an IEEE report stated that a container vessel fracture was "the most fearful of nuclear accidents that can occur in any plant with a highly pressurised primary system” and that no solution was possible “short of putting the plant underground or inside a mountain". This last proposal has in fact been recommended in the past but has been rejected as being economically unsound since the whole purpose of building PWRs is to reduce the cost of producing energy. Any concern for the safety of human beings is secondary. The CEGB statement, outlining its case for the new Sizewell B PWR, makes this clear: “economy, in that it is estimated to give lifetime operational savings that more than offset its original capital cost in a wide range of futures, and to have a superior economic return to investment in an AGR (Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor) or coal fired station”.

But that still leaves such problems as having to avoid fractures of the container vessel. The Marshall Report recognises the need for high standards of materials and welding, for detailed procedures in quality control, and wider measures for inspection during the manufacture of components. In the USA manufacturers on a number of nuclear sites were taking short cuts; standards were not being met and, because of the complexities involved in building a nuclear power station, the inspection process was to say the least inadequate.

The forces operating against safety are not just the employers’ prime incentive to make profits. There is also the question of the workers’ attitude. It is no coincidence that the Three Mile Island catastrophe arose through a succession of faults and mistakes which ended with a decision to turn off the water coolant. The prime reason for a worker seeking employment is to get the money in order to live. The workers’ product, whether it be a piece of equipment for a nuclear power station or an inspection job in the everyday running of that plant, is not the main purpose for working; it is a means to an end rather than a first concern. The alienation of the worker from the production process means that the incentive to create a quality product needs to be constantly enforced by external means.

To try to overcome this problem of the productive relations being in conflict with the desired technology, the Marshall Study Group recommended vast improvements in the inspection of equipment and procedures at all stages of manufacture and operation. But the problem remains.

Radioactive waste

Perhaps the most emotive issue in the field of nuclear energy in recent years has been the creation and disposal of radioactive waste. The secrecy that has surrounded the transporting and disposing of the waste has added to speculations about the dangers involved. Because the nuclear energy industry is closely associated with the nuclear weapons industry, the transportation of nuclear waste between power stations and reprocessing plants or to disposal sites has to be clouded with secrecy partly because of fears that terrorist groups may take advantage of the situation.

Nevertheless, the problems of nuclear waste are not merely of secrecy. There are three classifications for radioactive waste material, each presenting different problems. The first classification, low level waste, consists of a variety of materials that are mildly radioactive — old laboratory clothing, chemical sludges, but not of used fuel elements or materials from them. This is the type of waste that is packaged in large drums and dumped at sea. The International Atomic Energy Agency sets limits to the amount that can be disposed of in this way but, as all radiation is potentially dangerous, these levels are related more to the demands of a profitable nuclear energy programme than to any concern about human health. Dumping at sea is a cheap means of disposal and reflects the general aim of maximising profits rather than the technical problem of a particular industry.

Less publicised, but of greater concern as regards PWRs, is the intermediate level waste. This is radioactive material which even under the criteria laid down by the ICRP is too dangerous to be released into the environment and yet the quantity produced by the nuclear industry is too great to keep in store. The PWRs produce about five times the quantity of this type of waste as do the AGRs. This means that disposal and its costs are crucial issues with the PWRs. The latest report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) recommends that the go-ahead should be given to dumping the expected 70,000 cubic metres of this material in some deep cavity or old mine shaft. The Sizewell Enquiry into the proposed PWR will certainly have to deal with the issue of whether damage to the environment and human health is a necessary sacrifice in the interests of production for profit, it is unlikely that the increased production of dangerous radioactive waste by this type of reactor will be a determining factor.

The third type of radioactive waste, high level, has received some publicity mainly because of the deep rock drilling programmes carried out recently on a number of sites in different parts of the country. High level waste consists of the remains of old fuel elements after recyclable materials such as plutonium and uranium have been removed. Compared to low level and intermediate waste this forms a small quantity, but because it is highly radioactive is requires constant attention for 50 or 100 years. At present this waste is kept in acid in stainless steel tanks but it is proposed to transform this liquid into solid glass blocks.

Scientists, even from the UKAEA, have emphasised the desirability of being able to monitor this waste material and have looked to some form of storage. The Royal Commission, on the other hand, was concerned about the possibilities of war or terrorism and their effects on such a store; it objected to the idea of long term storage and advocated disposal in some form or other. This is what the rock drilling in various parts of the country has been about. Last December the government decided to abandon the rock drilling surveys for prospective disposal sites because they realised that the heat problems from high level waste are such that it cannot be dumped for at least 50 years. As a result, no effective programme for dealing with high level waste exists. So workers in the plants where the waste is now kept are being exposed (and are likely to be for some time) to greater risks from radiation. Concern over this has been expressed in the latest RWMAC report. The differing approaches by scientists and politicians has already led to one resignation from the RWMAC. that of Dr. Stanley Bowie. The latest report also warns of the possibility of radioactive waste management getting seriously out of hand in the absence of an effective decision about its future.

Human beings are exposed to constant risk as statistical compromises are made in the trail of devastation left in the drive for profits. One effect of the industrial revolution was the destruction of human life in the new factory system. Capitalism's use and abuse of nuclear energy reflects the way 20th century technology is handled by a society which serves only a minority of the population. Behind the white coats and white walls that are everywhere in the clinical nuclear establishments, the anarchy of production that drives millions into poverty, unemployment, sickness and war rolls on.

Will a socialist society have a place for nuclear energy? Such decisions will be made by the majority of people, in contrast to the minority who at present own and control the means of producing wealth. It will not be a question of which energy source is the most profitable, but of what is in the interest of the whole community. If nuclear energy is developed in a socialist society it will not be driven along by market forces but will develop under conscious social control, to ensure that it serves human beings instead of the market system. And lastly, in a socialist society all work will be voluntary. Consequently the motive for work will not be because it is necessary in order to get a pay packet, but the satisfaction that can be gained from it.

MD

These Foolish Things: Poverty (1995)

The Scavenger column from the December 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poverty

"Britain has the second lowest standard of living in western Europe after Portugal, according to a survey of incomes and living costs in Europe’s nine wealthiest countries . . . The wide variation in living standards is one reason why the governments of lower-income nations such as Britain are reluctant to embrace a single currency: it would throw a glaring spotlight on just how far Britain’s standard of living hits fallen behind those of Germany and France, say economists." 

(The Sunday Times, 17 September.)

Insecurity

"The Anglia Co-operative Society is being taken to an industrial tribunal by 110 of its staff alleging unfair dismissal and breach of contract. The action follows drastic changes in working practices imposed on staff at the company’s 20 East Anglian rainbow supermarkets. The shake-up hits their entitlement to pensions and maternity and sickness benefits. The 1,600 employees learned they faced a choice of having their hours cut or losing their jobs only after seeing them advertised in the local press earlier this year."

(Financial Mail on Sunday, 24 September.)

Destitution

"Homeless people in Camden are being urged to “adopt a doorway” in order to qualify to vote. Labour-controlled Camden council is advising them to find themselves a “regular pitch” so they can be placed on the electoral register. But the council’s campaign is being criticised by some residents, traders and Tory councillors who fear it is open to abuse and will act as a magnet for more “homeless and hungry” beggars, particularly in the King’s Cross area."

(Evening Standard, 20 September.)

A breath of competition

"Some British commentators gleefully predict that the infusion of American-style capitalism into the electricity industry will turn these stodgy “socialist” industries into sleek, low-cost operations. However, do not look to American managers for efficiency. Southern’s largest subsidiary, Georgia Power spent over $1.6 billion on plant now “stranded”—an industry euphemism for plant that would be worthless but for regulatory charges imposed by regulators to cover failed investments.

Despite its sordid record. Southern is not an especially poorly-managed utility by American standards. Atrocious overspending on plant is the American norm and questionable business practices arc all too common." 

(Gregory Palast, Guardian, 21 September.)

Sky's the limit

The Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association is pressing the Office of Fair Trading to investigate Rupert Murdoch’s BSkyB charges for showing their satellite programmes in pubs. Publicans claim that, since 1992, the basic subscription has risen 1,152 percent— from £5.99 to £75 a month.

The Scavenger

Just stop being manipulative (2022)

From the December 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blocking roads, throwing paint at buildings, gluing themselves to paintings, what’s it all about? It’s all in the title. Just Stop Oil. In other words, keep capitalism but just stop extracting and using oil. In itself, it’s a completely unrealistic proposition. Even socialist society would have to use some oil for some purposes, even if not to burn on a massive scale to generate electricity or to power trains and planes and cars, vans and lorries. It is essential as a lubricant and can be used to make other products such as plastics, paints and ointments. But under capitalism, taken literally the demand to stop extracting it is way off the scale of unachievable demands.

Capitalist production is not production with the rational aim of meeting human needs. It is uncontrollable production by separate, competing enterprises for sale with a view to profit. The battle of competition is won by those which can keep their costs the lowest, not lastingly by cutting corners but by using the cheapest suitable materials and by installing new machines or adopting new methods of production that reduce the cost per unit of what the enterprise is selling.

At the moment oil is the cheapest practical source of energy, when burned, for powering transport, whether by land, air or sea, and transport is essential for getting goods to market and workers to work. If oil was stopped today from being used for transport, society would literally grind to a halt; millions would die. Nor is any government going to adopt this on its own as currently available alternatives are either not scaled up sufficiently, nor reliable, or would increase costs massively and render enterprises operating in and from its territory completely uncompetitive.

It could be that those behind Just Stop Oil are demanding the maximum in order to get something less such as a more rapid transition to alternatives. That might well be why some look on their campaign with some sympathy. On the other hand, it could just be a tactic to get people to demand something that the campaign’s initiators know to be unrealistic and that when their followers realise this they will turn to demanding something more radical than just stopping the extraction of oil. This wouldn’t be the end of capitalism since those behind the campaign have explicitly rejected such talk. It is more likely to be questioning ‘industrial civilisation’ and returning to a ‘simpler’ way of life, to an imagined earlier stage of production for the market when this was to meet local needs.

But we know that the leaders of the campaign are more manipulative than this. The campaign was planned before the war in Ukraine when there was an expectation that no more licences would be granted to drill for oil in the North Sea. The leaders’ declared aim was to demand something they thought was going to be achieved anyway and to pass this off as a victory for the campaign, so as to build up the confidence of its activist foot soldiers and gain more of them and reach the figure they consider enough to bring about a change that will stop and reverse global warming.

They have declared that figure to be around 3 percent of the population engaging in non-violent civil disobedience. Roger Hallam, the group’s chief strategist if not leader, has been quoted as saying: ‘You can basically save the next generation with 2 per cent of the American population mobilised, engaged in an intense intra-relationship between high-level disruption and intense mobilisation… If you don’t upset people enough, then nothing happens’ (Times, 24 October).

Something has happened. The government has brought in a new law to deal with Just Stop Oil’s tactics, adding to the state’s arsenal of repressive laws. But this, too, will be part of the group’s leaders’ strategy to attract more activist followers, this time from those who object to non-violent protestors being jailed. Grist for the mill to reach the 2 or 3 percent. As if such a small number could impose its will on the majority or even win majority sympathy. Not even minority insurrectionists believe that.

Adam Buick