5 ms·

Nuclear energy is just being used as a carrot by fossil fuel companies. They don’t want renewables so they’re dangling an unrealistic option.

usrbinbash 2y ago
Pray tell, what is "unrealistic" about nuclear energy as an alternative? There are only 436 nuclear reactors in the world (for comparisons sake, there are more than 2400 coal power plants worldwide, and the US alone have more than 980 natural-gas power stations (2022). And yet this small number of nuclear reactors produces 10% of global electricity.
- throwaway5959 2y ago
  When was the last nuclear plant built in California? Edit: downvoting someone you disagree with is not cool. Go outside, touch some grass.
  - krasin 2y ago
    California is a bad example for nuclear, as it's the perfect spot for solar. On the opposite, Finland lacks sun, but enjoys their new reactor (even though, since it's another one-off project, it's over budget).
    - throwaway5959 2y ago
      I don’t live in Finland. In fact, Finland’s population is half that of Michigan’s, so I’m sure they’d be fine with solar and wind as well. They already get a quarter of their power from hydro.
      - krasin 2y ago
        > I’m sure they’d be fine with solar Sorry, your confidence betrays you here. Please, look up the altitude of Helsinki. In January they get 6 hours of sunlight per day and it's almost universally cloudy winter-time. Nuclear & wind are better options for Finland and they pursue both ([1], [2], [3]) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
        throwaway5959 2y ago
        Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”.
        krasin 2y ago
        > Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”. Because wind works for Finland and it's a good idea for them to invest in it (and they do). But putting solar & Finland together is nonsense.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        bryanlarsen 2y ago
        The Nordic countries are literally the only places in the world where solar isn't the best option by 2030: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-ener...
        kbenson 2y ago
        "Best" is relative to how you're measuring, and cheapest doesn't mean that's where you want to put all your investment. The cheapest option that can work for some small about of the time can be best by one measurement and not by another. There are other problems with solar that make it beneficial to offset with other energy sources. For example, lack of ability to generate any energy for 50% of the year, and reduced efficiency depending on weather. Wind has its own problems as well, but are map to somewhat different circumstances than solar, so is a good supplement for some of the power. Nuclear has its own problems as well, but unlike wind and solar, many of those aren't inherent to the source, but to how we've developed methods to harness it and deal with produced byproduct (waste). I suspect a first principles approach to nuclear energy might eventually be a very useful source of energy. I think it would be beneficial if we still kept some nuclear around to keep developing it towards a better source. It does well to offset some of the requirements of other systems, which are limited by time, geography or climate.
  - tbrownaw 2y ago
    Yeah, sure, lets take a technology where the main challenge is obstructionism by NIMBYs who bought in to too much FUD, and judge it by a state notorious for enabling NIMBYism.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Nuclear energy has a levelized cost of energy that is about 5-10x more expensive than utility solar, with solar expected to continue becoming exponentially cheaper
  - usrbinbash 2y ago
    And? Solar cannot do it, it's as simple as that, so the cost is irrelevant. > becoming exponentially cheaper "Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power. But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further. Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      > Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power. Not “at first” but demonstrably over time and ongoing. Yes it will cease eventually but it seems like that’s not near. > But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further. Powering the us on batteries for a full day is not a realistic goal. But batteries are already cost competitive and shuttering gas peaker plants. > Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands. Rooftop solar is actually more expensive than nuclear actually. Or at least a year or two ago. If you build a bunch of nuclear you will not be able to compete on price with cheap renewables during the day. But you can’t just turn a nuclear reactor on and off so you’ll have to still generate and operate at a loss. Which means to be profitable you have to raise prices to make up for it in the off hours. Which, in turn, makes you less competitive and makes it more commercially viable for batteries. Tl;dr, market forces will punish you. Renewables and batteries and fossil fuels as backup are the clear winners
krasin 2y ago
Yes, I can believe that. Anyone who tries to say "let's wait for nuclear and not deploy solar/wind" is not rational, unless driven by the idea to sell more fossil fuels. My personal position - let's allow building both; nuclear and solar/wind are complementary, not exclusive; but the government funding should mostly go to solar/wind at the moment, as they are the fastest & cheapest way to reduce CO2 emissions in the places, where these resources are available. And there are a lot of places like that.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  > Anyone who tries to say "let's wait for nuclear and not deploy solar/wind" is ...is being obstructionist and deceptive. Nuclear is already a thing.
armada651 2y ago
Quite the opposite, there's clear evidence that fossil fuel companies heavily supported anti-nuclear action groups. Because nuclear energy is just as much of a threat to their business as renewables are.
- lucidguppy 2y ago
  If you keep it forever in R&D you can have it as a carrot and never as a competitor. Tons and tons of cash that could go into battery or panel factories. And because they have the media in their pocket they can easily turn the knob on favor or disfavor of nuclear power. Solar is the solution now because America dithered and fumbled nuclear energy in the 60s - 80s. Now nuclear cannot be built because every estimate has been 1/10th the actual cost for plants built in this millennium. Glow rocks are dead - use fusion power from the sky.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- krasin 2y ago
  > Quite the opposite, there's clear evidence that fossil fuel companies heavily supported anti-nuclear action groups. Fossil companies fund both camps. They are especially interested in closing-down existing nuclear plants, as it immediately creates a big market for them, but it's also useful to them to delay deploying new solar/wind capacity (and thus, funding the wait-for-new-nuclear or even wait-for-fusion campaigns)
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  They probably flipped 5-15 years ago. Before then nuclear was the biggest threat to fossil energy. Now solar is, and pro-nuclear is the best anti-solar.
- childofzombie 2y ago
  [flagged]
- rbanffy 2y ago
Gibbon1 2y ago
Yeah they're trying to delay the decay of their valuation. A few years ago went looking at producing hydrogen by electrolysis for ammonia production. There was the usual 'well maybe' stuff but nothing showing anyone was doing anything concrete. Few days ago checked a again and there are a bunch of corporate news items about building electrolysers and hydrogen storage to replace natural gas reformer units. The problem the fossil fuel companies have is they can convince low information stupids that oil, gas, coal and nuclear are the only viable technologies. But they can't convince the accountants.
- dauertewigkeit 2y ago
  Yours seems like an unnecessarily cynical take. For sure oil companies try to green wash themselves with investment in green tech that seems too far fetched. Sure. But there are also many genuinely good intentioned people working on that green tech because they genuinely see a possible future application. For that matter oil companies invested in battery tech as well. For the most part they just want to appear like they are doing something. But their green washing shouldn't discredit the green tech itself.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    Oil companies know they are going to join the original oil suppliers, the dinosaurs, soon enough and they need to invest and build IP in renewables to be able to transition over to the green side. Nobody wants to be the next Kodak.
    - Gibbon1 2y ago
      I read an article where the author made a point that oil and gas companies aren't setup to compete in the renewables business. And they have the problem that companies that are already exist in that space. When it comes to building out a deep water oil rig they have no competition. But when it comes to set up an offshore wind farm marine services companies have the experience, equipment, and are nimble. Build solar panels? That's manufacturing and there is a whole other industry that makes commodity manufactured goods at scale. Batteries and solar panels are both extremely high volume commodity goods.
hoerensagen 2y ago
Exxon did this with a carbon tax in the US. Here is a quote of an exxon lobbyist bragging about it: "Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans and the cynical side of me says, yeah, we kind of know that but it gives us a talking point that we can say, well what is ExxonMobil for? Well, we’re for a carbon tax," Source: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/06/30/exxon-climate-change-undercover/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/06/30/exxon-climate-ch...
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
  Weird. Would it not work? (If there was actually any support for it) I'm for a carbon tax, or renewables, or nuclear, or anything at all that works.
  - jimbokun 2y ago
    By itself a carbon tax in the US would be extremely regressive as the vast majority of poor people here still need to drive to work, and they would immediately see the price increase at the pump. It would have to be offset with some kind of tax rebate, but it’s harder to explain a more complex program like traffic to the voters.
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      They'd get it completely after the first week, if you administered it correctly. The right way to do a motor fuel tax is to fully refund it per capita, frequently. No means tests or any shit like that, just mail checks on Friday.
nrdxp 2y ago
Solar and wind are detrimental to the environment in their own respects, and will never generate enough energy to solve the problem :D
- rbanffy 2y ago
  You need to back that up with numbers, because mine say otherwise. Ireland (of all places) has sizeable renewable running and solar roofs have government subsidies.
threeseed 2y ago
This is happening right now in Australia. Conservative opposition are pushing heavily for nuclear energy in a country that has more access to renewables than almost any other. And what happens is that the arguments over why you need it, where the reactors would be placed etc. are causing doubts from investors that long term, bi-partisan support for renewables exists. And investors need stability to invest. It's an insidious plan that is actually working.
- candiodari 2y ago
  Why would consensus against renewables work? Renewables work from pretty small-scale all the way up to industrial deployments (well, not in Alaska/Siberia but in Australia ...) So consensus shouldn't matter because if Joe the hairdresser or Jane the mechanic decide they, personally, want to do renewables, they can. Just by themselves. Hell, in most Australian cities ... I bet it would work in anything but the CBD.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    We are talking about major renewable projects not small scale solar panels on your roof. Even small scale needs stability in government support because you need to invest in the grid and energy storage to handle the excess in power generated by solar panels during the day.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      You don’t need to invest in the grid for that. You can use batteries. There are chemistries that work really well for large building batteries.
      - candiodari 2y ago
        You could also just waste the power. Why not?
        rbanffy 2y ago
yongjik 2y ago
Nuclear-happy France is burning way less fossil fuels than anti-nuclear Germany. If I'm in Germany and I want fossil fuel companies to make more money, I'll fund anti-nuclear protests.
- childofzombie 2y ago
  Why would you oppose a decade long project you could upset at any time which ends up requiring short term energy planning? I think you meant protests in France.
caseyy 2y ago
Why aren't the fossil fuel companies moving to renewables and nuclear themselves? Wouldn't it make better long-term business sense? They can then keep selling fossil fuels as long as they have a market to sell them in, but if the market dries up due to regulations — no worries. I might have a naive view of this but a dual strategy would seem to make more business sense. I mean — every dollar invested in lobbying for fossil fuels seems to have a higher expected value of money if it was spent on expanding renewable and nuclear operations.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  For the simple fact that even if it's true that renewables are cheaper than oil, it's still a much higher investment to build a renewable plant and hire people who know how to work it than it is to continue existing operations with existing people. Edit: In addition, if the environmentalits were to "win", that would turn essentially the entirety of these companies' existing capital into 0 value. So not lobbying to stop that is extremely dangerous.
  - anon84873628 2y ago
    >it's still a much higher investment to build a renewable plant and hire people who know how to work it than it is to continue existing operations with existing people. But someone is still doing that investment and will eventually reap the returns, so it still seems short sighted for existing energy companies not to try and outcompete them. >that would turn essentially the entirety of these companies' existing capital into 0 value. Honestly, I'd be kind of happy if these companies invested in renewables (even with government subsidies) and were lobbying the government to buy back the fossil fuel infrastructure that isn't needed anymore...
jimbokun 2y ago
How does a switch to nuclear help fossil fuel companies?
belorn 2y ago
Fossil fuel companies best bet right now is to focus on natural gas and oil, to be used in thermal power stations. When power prices fluctuating, they can get more of the money from customers using less fuel, hitting the grid when supply is at the lowest point. To help this they can get governments to pay subsidies for ongoing operations in the name of grid stability. The plants can also be used in theory with bio gas, so subsidies for construction is also on the table. In Europe, natural gas even got declared as being green and the energy of choice to stop climate change. They also managed to get a bunch of exceptions added regarding oil, especially when used in industry and shipping. Coal was really the only thing fossil fuel companies needed to sacrifice in order to have a profitable future.
throwthrowuknow 2y ago
That is the most ridiculously inverted truth I’ve ever seen regarding nuclear. This is article talks about the petrochemical industry’s long history of opposition to nuclear but you can find a lot of other information just by googling it. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossil-fuel-fight-against-nuclear-0205171.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossi...

usrbinbash 2y ago

Pray tell, what is "unrealistic" about nuclear energy as an alternative? There are only 436 nuclear reactors in the world (for comparisons sake, there are more than 2400 coal power plants worldwide, and the US alone have more than 980 natural-gas power stations (2022). And yet this small number of nuclear reactors produces 10% of global electricity.

throwaway5959 2y ago
When was the last nuclear plant built in California? Edit: downvoting someone you disagree with is not cool. Go outside, touch some grass.
- krasin 2y ago
  California is a bad example for nuclear, as it's the perfect spot for solar. On the opposite, Finland lacks sun, but enjoys their new reactor (even though, since it's another one-off project, it's over budget).
  - throwaway5959 2y ago
    I don’t live in Finland. In fact, Finland’s population is half that of Michigan’s, so I’m sure they’d be fine with solar and wind as well. They already get a quarter of their power from hydro.
    - krasin 2y ago
      > I’m sure they’d be fine with solar Sorry, your confidence betrays you here. Please, look up the altitude of Helsinki. In January they get 6 hours of sunlight per day and it's almost universally cloudy winter-time. Nuclear & wind are better options for Finland and they pursue both ([1], [2], [3]) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Finland 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loviisa_Nuclear_Power_Plant
      - throwaway5959 2y ago
        Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”.
        krasin 2y ago
        > Cool, but you cut off the sentence where it says “and wind”. Because wind works for Finland and it's a good idea for them to invest in it (and they do). But putting solar & Finland together is nonsense.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - bryanlarsen 2y ago
        The Nordic countries are literally the only places in the world where solar isn't the best option by 2030: https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-energy-reading-list/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2023/10/19/future-of-ener...
        kbenson 2y ago
        "Best" is relative to how you're measuring, and cheapest doesn't mean that's where you want to put all your investment. The cheapest option that can work for some small about of the time can be best by one measurement and not by another. There are other problems with solar that make it beneficial to offset with other energy sources. For example, lack of ability to generate any energy for 50% of the year, and reduced efficiency depending on weather. Wind has its own problems as well, but are map to somewhat different circumstances than solar, so is a good supplement for some of the power. Nuclear has its own problems as well, but unlike wind and solar, many of those aren't inherent to the source, but to how we've developed methods to harness it and deal with produced byproduct (waste). I suspect a first principles approach to nuclear energy might eventually be a very useful source of energy. I think it would be beneficial if we still kept some nuclear around to keep developing it towards a better source. It does well to offset some of the requirements of other systems, which are limited by time, geography or climate.
- tbrownaw 2y ago
  Yeah, sure, lets take a technology where the main challenge is obstructionism by NIMBYs who bought in to too much FUD, and judge it by a state notorious for enabling NIMBYism.
jncfhnb 2y ago
Nuclear energy has a levelized cost of energy that is about 5-10x more expensive than utility solar, with solar expected to continue becoming exponentially cheaper
- usrbinbash 2y ago
  And? Solar cannot do it, it's as simple as that, so the cost is irrelevant. > becoming exponentially cheaper "Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power. But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further. Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    > Exponentially" is very unlikely. It may become somewhat cheaper, at first, if supply increases. Which btw. is also true for nuclear power. Not “at first” but demonstrably over time and ongoing. Yes it will cease eventually but it seems like that’s not near. > But then what? We cannot power the world with solar alone, for the simple reason that we cannot store that much energy during the dark hours. Hydro storage is geographically limited, and batteries, well, let's just say the entire world output of Lithium over the last 3 decades didn't make enough to even store the electricity the US alone requires in a single day. And that is before be electrify further. Powering the us on batteries for a full day is not a realistic goal. But batteries are already cost competitive and shuttering gas peaker plants. > Yes, we should build more solar. There is no reason to have roofs not covered in panels. But all solar can do, is help. It is not the solution to our energy demands. Rooftop solar is actually more expensive than nuclear actually. Or at least a year or two ago. If you build a bunch of nuclear you will not be able to compete on price with cheap renewables during the day. But you can’t just turn a nuclear reactor on and off so you’ll have to still generate and operate at a loss. Which means to be profitable you have to raise prices to make up for it in the off hours. Which, in turn, makes you less competitive and makes it more commercially viable for batteries. Tl;dr, market forces will punish you. Renewables and batteries and fossil fuels as backup are the clear winners

krasin 2y ago

Yes, I can believe that. Anyone who tries to say "let's wait for nuclear and not deploy solar/wind" is not rational, unless driven by the idea to sell more fossil fuels. My personal position - let's allow building both; nuclear and solar/wind are complementary, not exclusive; but the government funding should mostly go to solar/wind at the moment, as they are the fastest & cheapest way to reduce CO2 emissions in the places, where these resources are available. And there are a lot of places like that.

tbrownaw 2y ago
> Anyone who tries to say "let's wait for nuclear and not deploy solar/wind" is ...is being obstructionist and deceptive. Nuclear is already a thing.

armada651 2y ago

Quite the opposite, there's clear evidence that fossil fuel companies heavily supported anti-nuclear action groups. Because nuclear energy is just as much of a threat to their business as renewables are.

lucidguppy 2y ago
If you keep it forever in R&D you can have it as a carrot and never as a competitor. Tons and tons of cash that could go into battery or panel factories. And because they have the media in their pocket they can easily turn the knob on favor or disfavor of nuclear power. Solar is the solution now because America dithered and fumbled nuclear energy in the 60s - 80s. Now nuclear cannot be built because every estimate has been 1/10th the actual cost for plants built in this millennium. Glow rocks are dead - use fusion power from the sky.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
krasin 2y ago
> Quite the opposite, there's clear evidence that fossil fuel companies heavily supported anti-nuclear action groups. Fossil companies fund both camps. They are especially interested in closing-down existing nuclear plants, as it immediately creates a big market for them, but it's also useful to them to delay deploying new solar/wind capacity (and thus, funding the wait-for-new-nuclear or even wait-for-fusion campaigns)
bryanlarsen 2y ago
They probably flipped 5-15 years ago. Before then nuclear was the biggest threat to fossil energy. Now solar is, and pro-nuclear is the best anti-solar.
childofzombie 2y ago
[flagged]
rbanffy 2y ago

Gibbon1 2y ago

Yeah they're trying to delay the decay of their valuation. A few years ago went looking at producing hydrogen by electrolysis for ammonia production. There was the usual 'well maybe' stuff but nothing showing anyone was doing anything concrete. Few days ago checked a again and there are a bunch of corporate news items about building electrolysers and hydrogen storage to replace natural gas reformer units. The problem the fossil fuel companies have is they can convince low information stupids that oil, gas, coal and nuclear are the only viable technologies. But they can't convince the accountants.

dauertewigkeit 2y ago
Yours seems like an unnecessarily cynical take. For sure oil companies try to green wash themselves with investment in green tech that seems too far fetched. Sure. But there are also many genuinely good intentioned people working on that green tech because they genuinely see a possible future application. For that matter oil companies invested in battery tech as well. For the most part they just want to appear like they are doing something. But their green washing shouldn't discredit the green tech itself.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Oil companies know they are going to join the original oil suppliers, the dinosaurs, soon enough and they need to invest and build IP in renewables to be able to transition over to the green side. Nobody wants to be the next Kodak.
  - Gibbon1 2y ago
    I read an article where the author made a point that oil and gas companies aren't setup to compete in the renewables business. And they have the problem that companies that are already exist in that space. When it comes to building out a deep water oil rig they have no competition. But when it comes to set up an offshore wind farm marine services companies have the experience, equipment, and are nimble. Build solar panels? That's manufacturing and there is a whole other industry that makes commodity manufactured goods at scale. Batteries and solar panels are both extremely high volume commodity goods.

hoerensagen 2y ago

Exxon did this with a carbon tax in the US. Here is a quote of an exxon lobbyist bragging about it: "Nobody is going to propose a tax on all Americans and the cynical side of me says, yeah, we kind of know that but it gives us a talking point that we can say, well what is ExxonMobil for? Well, we’re for a carbon tax," Source: https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/06/30/exxon-climate-change-undercover/ https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/06/30/exxon-climate-ch...

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
Weird. Would it not work? (If there was actually any support for it) I'm for a carbon tax, or renewables, or nuclear, or anything at all that works.
- jimbokun 2y ago
  By itself a carbon tax in the US would be extremely regressive as the vast majority of poor people here still need to drive to work, and they would immediately see the price increase at the pump. It would have to be offset with some kind of tax rebate, but it’s harder to explain a more complex program like traffic to the voters.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    They'd get it completely after the first week, if you administered it correctly. The right way to do a motor fuel tax is to fully refund it per capita, frequently. No means tests or any shit like that, just mail checks on Friday.

nrdxp 2y ago

Solar and wind are detrimental to the environment in their own respects, and will never generate enough energy to solve the problem :D

rbanffy 2y ago
You need to back that up with numbers, because mine say otherwise. Ireland (of all places) has sizeable renewable running and solar roofs have government subsidies.

threeseed 2y ago

This is happening right now in Australia. Conservative opposition are pushing heavily for nuclear energy in a country that has more access to renewables than almost any other. And what happens is that the arguments over why you need it, where the reactors would be placed etc. are causing doubts from investors that long term, bi-partisan support for renewables exists. And investors need stability to invest. It's an insidious plan that is actually working.

candiodari 2y ago
Why would consensus against renewables work? Renewables work from pretty small-scale all the way up to industrial deployments (well, not in Alaska/Siberia but in Australia ...) So consensus shouldn't matter because if Joe the hairdresser or Jane the mechanic decide they, personally, want to do renewables, they can. Just by themselves. Hell, in most Australian cities ... I bet it would work in anything but the CBD.
- threeseed 2y ago
  We are talking about major renewable projects not small scale solar panels on your roof. Even small scale needs stability in government support because you need to invest in the grid and energy storage to handle the excess in power generated by solar panels during the day.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    You don’t need to invest in the grid for that. You can use batteries. There are chemistries that work really well for large building batteries.
    - candiodari 2y ago
      You could also just waste the power. Why not?
      - rbanffy 2y ago

yongjik 2y ago

Nuclear-happy France is burning way less fossil fuels than anti-nuclear Germany. If I'm in Germany and I want fossil fuel companies to make more money, I'll fund anti-nuclear protests.

childofzombie 2y ago
Why would you oppose a decade long project you could upset at any time which ends up requiring short term energy planning? I think you meant protests in France.

caseyy 2y ago

Why aren't the fossil fuel companies moving to renewables and nuclear themselves? Wouldn't it make better long-term business sense? They can then keep selling fossil fuels as long as they have a market to sell them in, but if the market dries up due to regulations — no worries. I might have a naive view of this but a dual strategy would seem to make more business sense. I mean — every dollar invested in lobbying for fossil fuels seems to have a higher expected value of money if it was spent on expanding renewable and nuclear operations.

tsimionescu 2y ago
For the simple fact that even if it's true that renewables are cheaper than oil, it's still a much higher investment to build a renewable plant and hire people who know how to work it than it is to continue existing operations with existing people. Edit: In addition, if the environmentalits were to "win", that would turn essentially the entirety of these companies' existing capital into 0 value. So not lobbying to stop that is extremely dangerous.
- anon84873628 2y ago
  >it's still a much higher investment to build a renewable plant and hire people who know how to work it than it is to continue existing operations with existing people. But someone is still doing that investment and will eventually reap the returns, so it still seems short sighted for existing energy companies not to try and outcompete them. >that would turn essentially the entirety of these companies' existing capital into 0 value. Honestly, I'd be kind of happy if these companies invested in renewables (even with government subsidies) and were lobbying the government to buy back the fossil fuel infrastructure that isn't needed anymore...

jimbokun 2y ago

How does a switch to nuclear help fossil fuel companies?

belorn 2y ago

Fossil fuel companies best bet right now is to focus on natural gas and oil, to be used in thermal power stations. When power prices fluctuating, they can get more of the money from customers using less fuel, hitting the grid when supply is at the lowest point. To help this they can get governments to pay subsidies for ongoing operations in the name of grid stability. The plants can also be used in theory with bio gas, so subsidies for construction is also on the table. In Europe, natural gas even got declared as being green and the energy of choice to stop climate change. They also managed to get a bunch of exceptions added regarding oil, especially when used in industry and shipping. Coal was really the only thing fossil fuel companies needed to sacrifice in order to have a profitable future.

throwthrowuknow 2y ago

That is the most ridiculously inverted truth I’ve ever seen regarding nuclear. This is article talks about the petrochemical industry’s long history of opposition to nuclear but you can find a lot of other information just by googling it. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossil-fuel-fight-against-nuclear-0205171.html https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/V-Gloves-are-off-in-fossi...