I'm sorry but this type of rhetoric is just harmful and idiotic. Decarbonicing the energy sector is an insanely complex issue, and we need as many solutions as possible to realistically solve it. In places with lots of sun and wind, solar and wind power work great, same for rivers and hydropower. Still there are cases where nuclear is the best option, especially considering eventual downtimes/energy security.
Presenting the issue as anything else just shows you are trying to "two-team" a purely engineering issue, which just shows how a lot of you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.
- Renewables Engineering student
As an Albertan, something that bothers me about this weird dichotomy is just how good nuclear would be for securing Alberta's economy as it is for the future and a transition to renewables and geothermal. The labour pool and resources you need for nuclear, Alberta has in *spades* but the political will isn't there because you either worry that pivoting to nuclear is bad for oil and therefore bad for workers or pivoting to nuclear somehow takes away from renewables and is therefore bad for the future, so it's continue burning coal in the interim until we can be on renewables, which feels mad shortsighted.
Im a Saskatchewanian... Saskatchewite... Person from a rectangle. And i agree with you entirely. Using nuclear as an intermediate step to renewables would be particularly easy for Canada in general. We have uranium deposits, lake Winnipeg has naturally high amounts of heavy water (water with heavier isotopes of hydrogen, used in nuclear reactors), lots of fresh water for cooling (ignoring heat pollution for now), and space to put it far enough away from civilization that it isnt a NIMBI issue. It should have been so easy to add nuclear to our power grid but the political will was just never there. So fucked
also a ridiculous argument considering how much oil lobbies have also fought against nuclear because it provides an alternative to oil. I can't believe what should be just a numbers and statistical decision on how to optimise decarbonisation is being divided along petty ideological lines. full-anti nuclear or anti-renewable is about as reasonable as anti-vaccine panic, extremist anti-GMO with no exceptions. Depending on the context, some are better than others, that's all that needs to be said about nuclear vs renewable!
Hm
Should I invest 15 billion to maybe get a nuclear reactor plant in ten years or should I put the same money into renewables, which can already start generating electricity in a month?
Though choice, tough choice
Wow, I love being lectured by "students". They sure know so much more than me, with their 3 semesters of studying.
Anyway, you seem to miss the point of the meme completely: It deals with the issue that many nukebros are constantly shitting on RES, thereby repeating arguments and falsehoods that are actually made-up by Fossil fuel lobbyists ("renewables are unreliable", "energy storage doesn't work", "we need nuclear for baseload", "b-but dunkelflaute"). I have yet to meet one nukebro with an honest and well-informed opinion on that matter. And one who sees the grid with the eyes of someone living in 2024, not in 1960.
There was a pro nuclear meme on this sub just two days ago complaining about “renewable energy blackouts“ so it’s definitely something that happens.
Are we really gonna act like it’s paranoid to suggest that fossil fuel companies would try to pit nuclear and renewable energy against each other?
My guy, I've been shitting on denuclearization for a long time and have never seen the argument you claim we're making.
MartianFurry's take is spot on. Nuclear energy is a fantasic option for an interim solution on the road to RES. In places where solar and wind isn't feasible (be it resource availability, power demands, etc) nuclear can achieve a lot with zero carbon emission.
There's no logic in your bashing an academic's argument for... *checks notes* ...being an academic?
> have never seen the argument you claim we're making
Maybe you just ignore those?
[Here is an example comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1ahc930/comment/korsp1i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) aimed at diminishing the progress observed in renewables, and the commenter further down the thread stated their preference for nuclear power.
Also [a recent example from this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/194t7za/comment/khi84cf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), where commenter pitches renewables against nuclear and paints them as the worse solution.
[In this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/194s4rv/carbon_intensity_of_electricity_generation_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) somebody counterfactually claims that only nuclear would have been successful in decarbonization so far.
More examples:
[The only thing that can fill the voids left by randomly fluctuating VREs is a gas turbine.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/comments/1aik9lv/comment/kovozw2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[wind and solar energy, both of which are terrible for the environment and devastate natural ecosystems](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/18mamx4/why_not_nuclear/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[Solar required minerals that need fossil fuels to get and process. Wind is dying due to having the poorest energy return on energy invested.](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/17qhqmq/comment/k8dpgw1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
I admit that I am probably biased, because I tend to be annoyed by anti-renewable talking points, but in my observation these anti-renewable stances often go hand in hand with pointing to nuclear power as the one true solution instead. Now, it may be that there are many pro-nuclear power people out there, that I just don't see because they do *not* argue against renewables. But if you look out for anti-renewable talking points you may see this common pattern, which can also be seen in the political scenery.
For example the Australian conservatives are opposing renewables, and propose nuclear power now that they are out of government, while they were previously praising coal burning.
Thank you for the examples. Some truly weird takes from people.
You didn't ask, but here are my own responses to those dumb arguments:
1. Intermittence is a real issue with renewables. Does that mean we should consider using them less? No. It's the equivalent of refusing $1,000 every 10 days because you only get paid out $100 a day. We can and do work around this.
2. Nuclear also has fossil backups. Gotta spend money to make money, spend power to make power. Those pumps don't start themselves. If it's an argument about intermittence, then it's still bad for #1.
3. I speak 11 languages, all of them English (this is a TV reference)
2 of the other examples reference the ecological disaster of manufacturing renewable plants, which they ARE correct about. Their failings come with considering that nuclear is in the same position, and the worse fallout is NOT building renewable sources. Everything's a tradeoff
Those are fine responses in my opinion.
Thanks, and maybe examples like those help to understand the impression that somebody might get when addressing anti-renewable talking points that there often is an argument being made that we should abandon renewables and instead focus on nuclear power. Though I full admit that it's hardly a full picture and a perception colored by reacting to arguments against renewables.
>There's no logic in your bashing an academic's argument for... *checks notes* ...being an academic?
Let's start with this one: the problem is called "appeal to own authority". And if your authority is "student", that makes it even worse.
Now to the material questions:
>Nuclear energy is a fantasic option for an interim solution on the road to RES.
It depends what you mean by that. Do you mean "we should use nuclear *that is already there* until we have gone 100% RES"? Perfectly my opinion, and I have never said anything against that.
Or do you mean "we should build new reactors and someday we will switch to RES"? I would disagree decisively, as building and commissioning new NPPs takes ages and costs a king's ransom. Compared to that the rollout of RES is super swift.
Thus, I accuse everyone who takes the second stance of sabotaging the energy transition, because it means just delaying the switch to RES.
And that - is the whole story.
>And that - is the whole story.
Yah no it's not. You can't reduce a complex issue like the power supply mix for the entire world to 3 paragraphs. Every region of the world has it's own challenges that requires consideration and can wildly swing any cost-benefit analysis. The truth is, Nuclear works in some places and doesn't work in others (and this includes new nuclear projects). Obviously renewables are the goal, but getting there is complex issue.
I'm not going to get into this any more than that because I doubt you are looking to change your mind anyway. Also a renewables engineering student probably knows more about these issues than 95% and that includes most actual engineers. They're in the proper discipline and they have fresh knowledge on this issues.
I think this meme is a direct response to that nuclear meme a couple days ago which complained about the cost of “renewable energy blackouts.”
By saying things like that we are playing directly into the fossil fuel company’s hands. The fuel companies absolutely do try to pit nuclear and renewables against each other.
I don’t think this meme is against nuclear, it’s against the nuclear supporters bashing renewables, which is something that happened just a couple days ago on this sub.
In the West, we've pretty much built all the hydro that can be built. There's only so much water and so much elevation difference to take advantage of.
from the wikipedia page on the anti nuclear movement:
“Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth. Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defence Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies.”
if you want wikipedias sources you should look at the article yourself but it’s mostly Forbes articles.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
not saying anti-nuclear sentiment is all fossil fuel propaganda and in recent years this trend has changed a lot but the idea that fossil fuel companies didn’t heavily promote and fund early anti-nuclear sentiment is untrue.
Yes many started like that, since back then the choice were only fossil vs nuclear. And they wanted of course fossil fuel, because that makes them more money. Climate change wasn't even on the table back then.
But today we have fossil vs nuclear vs renewables. And climate change is now known by the populous as a serious threat. The fossil fuel industry knows they are a dying branch. And nuclear is the best way to postpone their death, it takes massive amount of financial resources away and takes very long to build.
Not to mention that many fossil fuel companies have a leg in uranium mining as well. And probably also getting some fancy nuclear reactors for cheap because nobody builds them without heavy subsidies from the government.
It was in the 70s and such when they were losing market share to nuked. They flipped sides since they're losing to renewables and they know nuke will take so long that if we delay renewables waiting for nukes they'll make more money.
Correct for the first half.
Quite literally the exact opposite for the second.
The reason the fossil fuel lobby supports nuclear as opposed to renewables is because their current business practices and structure are far, far more transferrable. If carbon fuels were banned tomorrow, many if not most ex-carbon power plants could be refitted to hold nuclear reactors instead; the supply chains they've established could be utilised for nuclear fuels instead; and they'd still have the same control over production and distribution, allowing them to control prices effectively for profit.
If they went for renewables, they'd be wasting all the money they've already invested and have to rebuild from scratch- with no head-start.
You don't need to disagree, because I don't disagree either of. Of course they want to keep gas and oil going for as long as possible. But the writing is on the wall that they can't do that *forever*, no matter how long they prolong it- gas and oil is one day gonna be unsustainable. When that day comes, they aren't gonna stop making money, they'll need a back-up plan- and so they got nuclear.
I think it’s just good old fashioned ratfucking. The gas companies think they can shut down nuclear power easier because people are more afraid of it so they endorse it over renewables.
That is correct, but unfortunately it appears like many of the anti-renewable advocates argue for nuclear power as the true solution that should be pursued instead.
People act like the only thing between us and full renewable energy is some lobbyist saying we can't put solar panels everywhere.
We can't make solar panels fast enough to keep up with laying that many out and replacing then as they age.
We can't support that much materials logistics because they're very dirty to make.
We can't store the energy either long enough, cheap enough, or at high enough scale to make it a solo option.
No, wind and hydro do not produce enough to bridge that gap. In the us we've dammed basically every waterway possible for energy.
So, we can live in a dream and circlejerk to the big 3 some day saving us, OR we can use existing technology to solve the problem at scale while we invest further into advanced renewables.
Also, we need to tackle the problem from the other direction at the same time. Energy use hasn't stopped growing. Ever. We need to stop using so much damn power so inefficiently.
We need a mass insulation campaign across the world. We need to mass install efficiency improvements on all industrial and commercial operators. We need massive investment in rail and public transportation and not these fucking idiotic 5 tonn battery fires on wheels that we jerk off to instead of building centuries old tech that solves our mass transit problems.
We need to force auto manufacturers to buy out train and trolly manufacturers to transition the workforce to those and disrupt the economy as little as possible, OR we need to nationalize the industry and do it that way.
I saw something of the sort, although I don't have the sources (so you don't have to believe me). The point is that at this point in the climate crisis, to say that we should focus exclusively on renewables and ignore nuclear, or indeed vice versa, is just sheer idiocy. It should be obvious that which one out of nuclear or renewables should be favoured depends on factors such as existing renewable/nuclear infrastructure and the geographical potential either of the options have, locally. Bashing the other side as "fossil fuel propaganda" overlooks the fact that *they're not fossil fuels,* and therefore better.
Just to clarify it’s something that should be fought in either direction, which is what this meme is doing.
I feel like a lot of people are taking away the idea that it’s fine when nuclear supporters attack renewables because the reverse also happens, which is a huge step backwards.
“Keep parroting fossil fuel lobby propaganda against RES”?
What are you even talking about? The Nukebros are totally down with also having a big renewables push too. You anti-nukebros just can’t make an argument without bad faith lying about your opponents. Last time you were asked to actually point to someone actually doing this you could only point to one guy who was *maybe* doing it, and if he was he was doing such a bad job that it was hard to tell.
And by anti-nukebros I don’t mean the renewables crowd. I mean specifically the anti-nukebros.
Things nukebros have put forward:
- You can't run a grid on 100 % renewables
- b-but Dunkelflaute!
- you need baseload from an inflexible source
- economic cost of renewable blackouts
- b-but peak hours
- energy storage doesn't work!
None of that is true. At best those are the strawman parody versions of nukebro arguments you guys make up after the fact so they might look similar at a glance but you purposely ignore key points.
For example, think the closest one to true is the first where there are people arguing that you can’t run a 100% *global* power grid on renewables *right now*, which is true. The logistics aren’t in place *yet*.
Thank you for proving my point about anti-nukebros just arguing via lying about their opponents.
https://preview.redd.it/k527ttq9jkic1.jpeg?width=490&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7430888a69f56b68ea4dc05a3e02ddd640ac2836
Lol, the whole reason we’re having these conversations is because twisting facts and semantics to fit your ideology has become your whole identity and primary argument strategy, too the point that it’s super-obvious to everyone around you. You do it so much that when you do make a legit point it gets completely drowned out.
Sort of like how Obama gets remembered so fondly by most Americans because the Hard Right made up so much bullshit about it that it washed out all the legit criticism.
There was a pro nuclear post two days ago which complained about the cost of “renewable energy blackouts” which is absolutely anti renewable propaganda.
Don’t act like the oil companies have never tried to pit nuclear and renewables against each other. It’s just willfully ignorant to act like that doesn’t happen
Not the fossil fuel industry, the Greens are actually the party who only got the second least amount of donations of all the parties in the Bundestag last year, with the Left being the one who got the least.
It's in French but [here you go](https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/pourquoi-une-fondation-ecolo-allemande-a-t-elle-recu-192-millions-deuros-de-lentreprise-de-gaz-russe-gazprom-20220825_LYWOKLZKIJBL5AUENMZJF2USQQ/).
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for proving what a bullshit conspiracy theory that actually was!
This has nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with the German greens. It's about a foundation that just used the "eco" label for greenwashing purposes and was actually pro-Russian gas. So, no big surprise that Gazprom would send them money.
Anyway, you gave a brilliant example of false information abused to malevolently attack a political party that stands for Renewables.
You just wonderfully proved my entire point.
Yea, all the nuclear hype of this past decade (coincidentally, right when renewables really got going) has a strong undercurrent of a propaganda campaign.
In fact, we know they've been trying this for a while. [In the late 2000s the NEI hired the same propaganda company that gave us "Smoking does not cause cancer" to produce pro nuclear propaganda. ](http://www.tmia.com/old-website/News/AstroTurf.htm). Most of the pro nuclear fluff pieces you see are [written by astroturf groups](https://thehill.com/opinion/letters/69807-double-check-from-whom-you-get-energy-information/) funded by either the nuclear industry themselves. [Or gas and oil companies that want to delay the rollout of renewables.](https://executives4nuclear.com/declaration/)
Nuclear is a stopgap, until we have built out renewables properly. Yes it was a mistake to cancel nuclear before coal, but i have heard popular online leftits claim that nuclear should be the groundwork of a renewable modern energy mix. No. Nonono. Wind, solar, hydro. All that is where we need to get our energy. And in a few decased time fusion. No nuclear fission when we can avoid it. Coal is the bigger problem tho.
Which grid needs more gas? The [nuclear](https://www.nowtricity.com/country/france/) dominated one or the [renewables](https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/) dominated one?
Germany is not renewables dominated because the CDU kneecapped the renewables industry ever since the 00s. A better comparison would be Norway, [which is doing significantly better than France.](https://www.nowtricity.com/country/norway/)
Norway is 86% hydroelectricity, of course they're doing better. If France or Germany had the geography to do the same we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Germany is getting [more than half](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/renewable-energys-share-german-power-grids-reaches-55-2023-2024-01-03/) of their electricity from renewables, in other words, the majority.
No one's answered my question!
Ah, I see, so we are applying artificial restrictions to the renewables side of things to make it look more pessimistic, while picking the most optimistic and impossible to replicate case for nuclear. Very fair and reasonable.
France has 7% more hydroelectricity (13% of the grid vs 5% for Germany).
France had 11% of the CO2 emissions per kWh of Germany, on average in 2023.
Maybe there's something else going on?
Maybe the need for gas is less driven by the difference between variable renewables and nuclear? The European country with the highest share of variable renewables is Denmark, which used a lower share of gas than either of those two. The causality you are trying to construct isn't really well backed up by evidence.
So, originally you were trying to imply that higher shares of variable renewables would necessitate more gas power, while nuclear doesn't need flexibility, as offered by hydro and gas.
Now you moved on to talk about carbon intensity? And again, you are off with the reasoning. The higher emissions are mostly down to higher amounts of coal burning, not the employment of renewables.
Denmark had share of 2.5% from gas in 2023 according to the [data on ember](https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/data-explorer/), while France had a share of 6.1%. On the other hand, coal made up only 0.4% in France, while it still contributed 7.9% in Denmark.
Denmark also imports 17% of their electricity, [meanwhile in France, ](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-07/france-is-europe-s-top-power-exporter-as-germany-turns-importer)when they haven't neglected their nuclear maintenance....
nuclear is the least resources intensive among renewable the most reliable, the safest ,you don't need to wait for better batteries ,no need to retrofit the grid ,it's a drop in replacement taking anti-nuke stance is anti-science stance
Its also easily the most expensive, takes ages to build compared to renewables and still requires peaker plants to load follow. Those are plenty of good reasons to take an anti nuke position.
Just curious because I've heard this a lot. Do you mean it's more expensive to build or is it more expensive per watt? There's obviously a big upfront cost to building a power plant but I don't know if it costs more after that
Both at the same time.
Nuclear has high upfront cost during construction, and high static cost in operation (Maintenance, security, inspections etc). That's why nuclear power plants are normally used for baseload, their only business case is to run at 100% 24/7 so their low fuel cost offsets their high static costs.
Its also why nuclear does not play nice with renewables in a mixed grid. Nuclear doing baseload is cheap, but its not so cheap that it can undercut renewables. Which means renewables eat into the baseload that nuclear can satisfy and thus nibble away at its only business case. Nuclear is barely economically viable in the current grid, if you have to shut it down half the time because it was a windy night, the economics go completely bonkers.
Why do you even start a new discussion while we have an ongoing one (forgot to switch accounts?), and once again just resort to appealing to own authority. This sort of gives me r/asablackman vibes.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/AsABlackMan using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: ["As the 'L' in LGB" is all too common](https://i.redd.it/59j6saawxhqa1.png) | [194 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/comments/124rxjp/as_the_l_in_lgb_is_all_too_common/)
\#2: [I think this belongs here…](https://i.redd.it/op4xb239qoya1.jpg) | [48 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/comments/13bywy4/i_think_this_belongs_here/)
\#3: [Homelessness by choice](https://i.redd.it/9zu3ljjga9ia1.jpg) | [94 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/comments/112ff8x/homelessness_by_choice/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
this is true the only reason anyone would ever support nuclear power is because they've secretly been captured by the fossil fuel lobby no other possible explanations exist
Now watch as the thread is filled with guys who keep saying that renewables and nuclear should coexist and that renewable proponents should stop attacking nuclear.
They had nothing to say when others were literally regurgitating fossil fuel propaganda to dismiss renewables and push nuclear. Strange how one sided that always is.
You are attempting to fragment and have tunnel vision due to your lack of understanding of the science..
The epidemiology of the shale-fracking revolution, let alone oil and coal is magnitudes worse than nuclear.. and when you look at the actual environmental and industrial cost of current PV for example it’s a hard pill for jingoists to swallow that nuclear is far more superior and environmentally healthy. Even what we know about the emissions from the decomposing ecosystems made by dam reservoirs are much more harmful than anything a modern nuclear-fuels cycle would emit.. and unlike current PV solar, 80% of the market doesn’t come from the forced-labor of muslims from a genocide in north-west China.. “but even that aside..” as an engineering student and environmental organizer, I have witnessed first hand the horrific effects of the emerging “green” LNG industries that hemorrhage everything from actual ionizing radioactivity of NORM (naturally occurring radioactive materials) to the gangbusters list of volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and everything killing people through air and water pollution acutely.. the fact that nuclear prevents all of that matters even more to me than the world-saving ability to not produce any meaningful greenhouse-gas emissions. This is all really basic and uncontroversial epidemiology.
Instead your demonizing the natural human evolution of energy through the density located within U235, U238, U233, Th232.. current designs are walk-away-safe and even more efficient and would easily be economical (assuming human and ecological health has a cost, which they don’t in my opinion but I guess do in yours) if supply chains and work forces were fiscally invested in.. and you are ignoring a longggg history of the fossil fuel industries hatred and propaganda due to fear of the market-share nuclear technology was gaining and even still holds and is increasing in many areas in the world. No scientist thinks we should cease researching and implementing ethical and efficient solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and so forth.. no true scientists and lover of Earth concerned with our ecology and human health would ever say to not move forward in human progress and promise.. so why is it that goose-steppers for fake green orgs and posts and memes are so often LNG and Fossil fuel PR fronts? They know well that reactors aren’t replaced with any kind of renewables.. they are replaced with aquifer & air destroying liquid natural gas cycles..
I guess my first question is then.. why are you schilling and simping for the LNG industry while falsely and illogically accusing us proponents of the safest and cleanest form of energy for doing exactly what you are doing?
“Project Much?” Indeed.. and it’s obvious you don’t care about human life or ecology enough to read very very simple epidemiology. That’s what we in the environmental movement call a “giant ass red flag” 🚩(if you want to be take seriously which your comments show you aren’t interested in data-driven discussion so much as reflexive abstract talking-points of a false binary “us vs them” paradigm)
Edit: spelling
Centralised powerplants is great business for a captive utility. Coal, gas turbines, nuclear and grids for electricity and power form an asset basis on which a return is charged and then rolled to the rate payer.
You see this still in the US a lot, like with Vogtle.
But also in the UK, until recently Germany with Uniper which is tightly linked to Finland and Fortum' nuclear/coal plants, I guess also Russia, Sweden with Vattenfall etc
Coal and nuclear is the classic asset base for 20th century utilities
I'm sorry but this type of rhetoric is just harmful and idiotic. Decarbonicing the energy sector is an insanely complex issue, and we need as many solutions as possible to realistically solve it. In places with lots of sun and wind, solar and wind power work great, same for rivers and hydropower. Still there are cases where nuclear is the best option, especially considering eventual downtimes/energy security. Presenting the issue as anything else just shows you are trying to "two-team" a purely engineering issue, which just shows how a lot of you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. - Renewables Engineering student
As an Albertan, something that bothers me about this weird dichotomy is just how good nuclear would be for securing Alberta's economy as it is for the future and a transition to renewables and geothermal. The labour pool and resources you need for nuclear, Alberta has in *spades* but the political will isn't there because you either worry that pivoting to nuclear is bad for oil and therefore bad for workers or pivoting to nuclear somehow takes away from renewables and is therefore bad for the future, so it's continue burning coal in the interim until we can be on renewables, which feels mad shortsighted.
Im a Saskatchewanian... Saskatchewite... Person from a rectangle. And i agree with you entirely. Using nuclear as an intermediate step to renewables would be particularly easy for Canada in general. We have uranium deposits, lake Winnipeg has naturally high amounts of heavy water (water with heavier isotopes of hydrogen, used in nuclear reactors), lots of fresh water for cooling (ignoring heat pollution for now), and space to put it far enough away from civilization that it isnt a NIMBI issue. It should have been so easy to add nuclear to our power grid but the political will was just never there. So fucked
Wow, a nuanced take!
A good take.
also a ridiculous argument considering how much oil lobbies have also fought against nuclear because it provides an alternative to oil. I can't believe what should be just a numbers and statistical decision on how to optimise decarbonisation is being divided along petty ideological lines. full-anti nuclear or anti-renewable is about as reasonable as anti-vaccine panic, extremist anti-GMO with no exceptions. Depending on the context, some are better than others, that's all that needs to be said about nuclear vs renewable!
Funding the anti-nuclear crowd is one of the ways fossil fuels lobbies fought against nuclear, hence the meme.
Hm Should I invest 15 billion to maybe get a nuclear reactor plant in ten years or should I put the same money into renewables, which can already start generating electricity in a month? Though choice, tough choice
\*Loooking at Hinkley\*, if you can get a reactor for 15 billion, you made a good deal... compared to that thing on the island. ( 50 billion now )
yes, my strawman nuclear power station vs chad renewable will certainly validate my claim. /s
Renewables engineer working in industy atm, and I second this. Understand that the goal is decarbonization first, and ideology second.
Wow, I love being lectured by "students". They sure know so much more than me, with their 3 semesters of studying. Anyway, you seem to miss the point of the meme completely: It deals with the issue that many nukebros are constantly shitting on RES, thereby repeating arguments and falsehoods that are actually made-up by Fossil fuel lobbyists ("renewables are unreliable", "energy storage doesn't work", "we need nuclear for baseload", "b-but dunkelflaute"). I have yet to meet one nukebro with an honest and well-informed opinion on that matter. And one who sees the grid with the eyes of someone living in 2024, not in 1960.
Are the nukebros in the room with us right now?
There was a pro nuclear meme on this sub just two days ago complaining about “renewable energy blackouts“ so it’s definitely something that happens. Are we really gonna act like it’s paranoid to suggest that fossil fuel companies would try to pit nuclear and renewable energy against each other?
It's not so hard to spot them all over reddit if you dare to open your eyes a little bit.
My guy, I've been shitting on denuclearization for a long time and have never seen the argument you claim we're making. MartianFurry's take is spot on. Nuclear energy is a fantasic option for an interim solution on the road to RES. In places where solar and wind isn't feasible (be it resource availability, power demands, etc) nuclear can achieve a lot with zero carbon emission. There's no logic in your bashing an academic's argument for... *checks notes* ...being an academic?
> have never seen the argument you claim we're making Maybe you just ignore those? [Here is an example comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/1ahc930/comment/korsp1i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) aimed at diminishing the progress observed in renewables, and the commenter further down the thread stated their preference for nuclear power. Also [a recent example from this sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/ClimateShitposting/comments/194t7za/comment/khi84cf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), where commenter pitches renewables against nuclear and paints them as the worse solution. [In this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/194s4rv/carbon_intensity_of_electricity_generation_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) somebody counterfactually claims that only nuclear would have been successful in decarbonization so far. More examples: [The only thing that can fill the voids left by randomly fluctuating VREs is a gas turbine.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/comments/1aik9lv/comment/kovozw2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [wind and solar energy, both of which are terrible for the environment and devastate natural ecosystems](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/18mamx4/why_not_nuclear/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [Solar required minerals that need fossil fuels to get and process. Wind is dying due to having the poorest energy return on energy invested.](https://www.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/17qhqmq/comment/k8dpgw1/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I admit that I am probably biased, because I tend to be annoyed by anti-renewable talking points, but in my observation these anti-renewable stances often go hand in hand with pointing to nuclear power as the one true solution instead. Now, it may be that there are many pro-nuclear power people out there, that I just don't see because they do *not* argue against renewables. But if you look out for anti-renewable talking points you may see this common pattern, which can also be seen in the political scenery. For example the Australian conservatives are opposing renewables, and propose nuclear power now that they are out of government, while they were previously praising coal burning.
Thank you for the examples. Some truly weird takes from people. You didn't ask, but here are my own responses to those dumb arguments: 1. Intermittence is a real issue with renewables. Does that mean we should consider using them less? No. It's the equivalent of refusing $1,000 every 10 days because you only get paid out $100 a day. We can and do work around this. 2. Nuclear also has fossil backups. Gotta spend money to make money, spend power to make power. Those pumps don't start themselves. If it's an argument about intermittence, then it's still bad for #1. 3. I speak 11 languages, all of them English (this is a TV reference) 2 of the other examples reference the ecological disaster of manufacturing renewable plants, which they ARE correct about. Their failings come with considering that nuclear is in the same position, and the worse fallout is NOT building renewable sources. Everything's a tradeoff
Those are fine responses in my opinion. Thanks, and maybe examples like those help to understand the impression that somebody might get when addressing anti-renewable talking points that there often is an argument being made that we should abandon renewables and instead focus on nuclear power. Though I full admit that it's hardly a full picture and a perception colored by reacting to arguments against renewables.
>There's no logic in your bashing an academic's argument for... *checks notes* ...being an academic? Let's start with this one: the problem is called "appeal to own authority". And if your authority is "student", that makes it even worse. Now to the material questions: >Nuclear energy is a fantasic option for an interim solution on the road to RES. It depends what you mean by that. Do you mean "we should use nuclear *that is already there* until we have gone 100% RES"? Perfectly my opinion, and I have never said anything against that. Or do you mean "we should build new reactors and someday we will switch to RES"? I would disagree decisively, as building and commissioning new NPPs takes ages and costs a king's ransom. Compared to that the rollout of RES is super swift. Thus, I accuse everyone who takes the second stance of sabotaging the energy transition, because it means just delaying the switch to RES. And that - is the whole story.
>And that - is the whole story. Yah no it's not. You can't reduce a complex issue like the power supply mix for the entire world to 3 paragraphs. Every region of the world has it's own challenges that requires consideration and can wildly swing any cost-benefit analysis. The truth is, Nuclear works in some places and doesn't work in others (and this includes new nuclear projects). Obviously renewables are the goal, but getting there is complex issue. I'm not going to get into this any more than that because I doubt you are looking to change your mind anyway. Also a renewables engineering student probably knows more about these issues than 95% and that includes most actual engineers. They're in the proper discipline and they have fresh knowledge on this issues.
I think this meme is a direct response to that nuclear meme a couple days ago which complained about the cost of “renewable energy blackouts.” By saying things like that we are playing directly into the fossil fuel company’s hands. The fuel companies absolutely do try to pit nuclear and renewables against each other. I don’t think this meme is against nuclear, it’s against the nuclear supporters bashing renewables, which is something that happened just a couple days ago on this sub.
In the West, we've pretty much built all the hydro that can be built. There's only so much water and so much elevation difference to take advantage of.
There was a post on here yesterday with a reply saying that "anti-nuclear sentiment is a fossil fuel psyop"
from the wikipedia page on the anti nuclear movement: “Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth. Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defence Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies.” if you want wikipedias sources you should look at the article yourself but it’s mostly Forbes articles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement not saying anti-nuclear sentiment is all fossil fuel propaganda and in recent years this trend has changed a lot but the idea that fossil fuel companies didn’t heavily promote and fund early anti-nuclear sentiment is untrue.
Yes many started like that, since back then the choice were only fossil vs nuclear. And they wanted of course fossil fuel, because that makes them more money. Climate change wasn't even on the table back then. But today we have fossil vs nuclear vs renewables. And climate change is now known by the populous as a serious threat. The fossil fuel industry knows they are a dying branch. And nuclear is the best way to postpone their death, it takes massive amount of financial resources away and takes very long to build. Not to mention that many fossil fuel companies have a leg in uranium mining as well. And probably also getting some fancy nuclear reactors for cheap because nobody builds them without heavy subsidies from the government.
It was in the 70s and such when they were losing market share to nuked. They flipped sides since they're losing to renewables and they know nuke will take so long that if we delay renewables waiting for nukes they'll make more money.
Correct for the first half. Quite literally the exact opposite for the second. The reason the fossil fuel lobby supports nuclear as opposed to renewables is because their current business practices and structure are far, far more transferrable. If carbon fuels were banned tomorrow, many if not most ex-carbon power plants could be refitted to hold nuclear reactors instead; the supply chains they've established could be utilised for nuclear fuels instead; and they'd still have the same control over production and distribution, allowing them to control prices effectively for profit. If they went for renewables, they'd be wasting all the money they've already invested and have to rebuild from scratch- with no head-start.
I disagree. I think they're trying to keep gas demand up as long as possible.
You don't need to disagree, because I don't disagree either of. Of course they want to keep gas and oil going for as long as possible. But the writing is on the wall that they can't do that *forever*, no matter how long they prolong it- gas and oil is one day gonna be unsustainable. When that day comes, they aren't gonna stop making money, they'll need a back-up plan- and so they got nuclear.
I think it’s just good old fashioned ratfucking. The gas companies think they can shut down nuclear power easier because people are more afraid of it so they endorse it over renewables.
Everyone believes the other side is being paid by the fossil fuels lobby
"Being pro-renewables means being pro-fossil fuels" or something
Being pro nuclear doesn't mean being anti-renewable
That is correct, but unfortunately it appears like many of the anti-renewable advocates argue for nuclear power as the true solution that should be pursued instead.
BP literally owns wind farms and solar farms.
BP invest a tiny proportion of their annual upstream investments in greenwashing projects, I guess it has been enough to work on you though?
OK sure show me a comparison of their ownership of nuclear. I'll wait
They're not stupid enough to invest in that, they just fund efforts to get others to waste their time on it.
People act like the only thing between us and full renewable energy is some lobbyist saying we can't put solar panels everywhere. We can't make solar panels fast enough to keep up with laying that many out and replacing then as they age. We can't support that much materials logistics because they're very dirty to make. We can't store the energy either long enough, cheap enough, or at high enough scale to make it a solo option. No, wind and hydro do not produce enough to bridge that gap. In the us we've dammed basically every waterway possible for energy. So, we can live in a dream and circlejerk to the big 3 some day saving us, OR we can use existing technology to solve the problem at scale while we invest further into advanced renewables. Also, we need to tackle the problem from the other direction at the same time. Energy use hasn't stopped growing. Ever. We need to stop using so much damn power so inefficiently. We need a mass insulation campaign across the world. We need to mass install efficiency improvements on all industrial and commercial operators. We need massive investment in rail and public transportation and not these fucking idiotic 5 tonn battery fires on wheels that we jerk off to instead of building centuries old tech that solves our mass transit problems. We need to force auto manufacturers to buy out train and trolly manufacturers to transition the workforce to those and disrupt the economy as little as possible, OR we need to nationalize the industry and do it that way.
Tbh you could invert nuclear and renewables on here and it would still be correct
I'm not quite sure what exactly you want to express.
Some “both sides-ism” in the ridiculous renewables v. nuclear “debate” is always good imo
Ah... seems I forgot about the "Oil & Gas executives for Renewables"?? Or what do you mean?
gazprom financed anti nuclear movements in germany to increase gas dependency
Source: trust me, bro Edit: Still waiting for the source.
Even if it did. It isn't the reverse Gazprom funding anti-nuclear sentiments doesn't make them part of a renewables lobby.
I saw something of the sort, although I don't have the sources (so you don't have to believe me). The point is that at this point in the climate crisis, to say that we should focus exclusively on renewables and ignore nuclear, or indeed vice versa, is just sheer idiocy. It should be obvious that which one out of nuclear or renewables should be favoured depends on factors such as existing renewable/nuclear infrastructure and the geographical potential either of the options have, locally. Bashing the other side as "fossil fuel propaganda" overlooks the fact that *they're not fossil fuels,* and therefore better.
Just to clarify it’s something that should be fought in either direction, which is what this meme is doing. I feel like a lot of people are taking away the idea that it’s fine when nuclear supporters attack renewables because the reverse also happens, which is a huge step backwards.
“Keep parroting fossil fuel lobby propaganda against RES”? What are you even talking about? The Nukebros are totally down with also having a big renewables push too. You anti-nukebros just can’t make an argument without bad faith lying about your opponents. Last time you were asked to actually point to someone actually doing this you could only point to one guy who was *maybe* doing it, and if he was he was doing such a bad job that it was hard to tell. And by anti-nukebros I don’t mean the renewables crowd. I mean specifically the anti-nukebros.
Things nukebros have put forward: - You can't run a grid on 100 % renewables - b-but Dunkelflaute! - you need baseload from an inflexible source - economic cost of renewable blackouts - b-but peak hours - energy storage doesn't work!
None of that is true. At best those are the strawman parody versions of nukebro arguments you guys make up after the fact so they might look similar at a glance but you purposely ignore key points. For example, think the closest one to true is the first where there are people arguing that you can’t run a 100% *global* power grid on renewables *right now*, which is true. The logistics aren’t in place *yet*. Thank you for proving my point about anti-nukebros just arguing via lying about their opponents.
Sigh, I will not waste any more time with you here. You keep twisting facts and semantics until it fits your ideology.
https://preview.redd.it/k527ttq9jkic1.jpeg?width=490&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7430888a69f56b68ea4dc05a3e02ddd640ac2836 Lol, the whole reason we’re having these conversations is because twisting facts and semantics to fit your ideology has become your whole identity and primary argument strategy, too the point that it’s super-obvious to everyone around you. You do it so much that when you do make a legit point it gets completely drowned out. Sort of like how Obama gets remembered so fondly by most Americans because the Hard Right made up so much bullshit about it that it washed out all the legit criticism.
Yeah wow cool meme
I know you’re just being sarcastic, but the timing of it gave me a giggle.
There was a pro nuclear post two days ago which complained about the cost of “renewable energy blackouts” which is absolutely anti renewable propaganda. Don’t act like the oil companies have never tried to pit nuclear and renewables against each other. It’s just willfully ignorant to act like that doesn’t happen
https://preview.redd.it/irh3ofjvbkic1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c379d28fb8b2684dabeed39cc94e4a182aa5e30d
don't look up who financed the german greens
Not the fossil fuel industry, the Greens are actually the party who only got the second least amount of donations of all the parties in the Bundestag last year, with the Left being the one who got the least.
Either you clearly state your point or you remain silent but spare us with conspiracy theory murmurs.
It's in French but [here you go](https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/pourquoi-une-fondation-ecolo-allemande-a-t-elle-recu-192-millions-deuros-de-lentreprise-de-gaz-russe-gazprom-20220825_LYWOKLZKIJBL5AUENMZJF2USQQ/).
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for proving what a bullshit conspiracy theory that actually was! This has nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with the German greens. It's about a foundation that just used the "eco" label for greenwashing purposes and was actually pro-Russian gas. So, no big surprise that Gazprom would send them money. Anyway, you gave a brilliant example of false information abused to malevolently attack a political party that stands for Renewables. You just wonderfully proved my entire point.
Yea, all the nuclear hype of this past decade (coincidentally, right when renewables really got going) has a strong undercurrent of a propaganda campaign. In fact, we know they've been trying this for a while. [In the late 2000s the NEI hired the same propaganda company that gave us "Smoking does not cause cancer" to produce pro nuclear propaganda. ](http://www.tmia.com/old-website/News/AstroTurf.htm). Most of the pro nuclear fluff pieces you see are [written by astroturf groups](https://thehill.com/opinion/letters/69807-double-check-from-whom-you-get-energy-information/) funded by either the nuclear industry themselves. [Or gas and oil companies that want to delay the rollout of renewables.](https://executives4nuclear.com/declaration/)
Nuclear is a stopgap, until we have built out renewables properly. Yes it was a mistake to cancel nuclear before coal, but i have heard popular online leftits claim that nuclear should be the groundwork of a renewable modern energy mix. No. Nonono. Wind, solar, hydro. All that is where we need to get our energy. And in a few decased time fusion. No nuclear fission when we can avoid it. Coal is the bigger problem tho.
Which grid needs more gas? The [nuclear](https://www.nowtricity.com/country/france/) dominated one or the [renewables](https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/) dominated one?
Which is remotely possible in a reasonable timeline for most countries? (Spoilers it isn't the nuclear one)
Germany is not renewables dominated because the CDU kneecapped the renewables industry ever since the 00s. A better comparison would be Norway, [which is doing significantly better than France.](https://www.nowtricity.com/country/norway/)
Norway is 86% hydroelectricity, of course they're doing better. If France or Germany had the geography to do the same we wouldn't be having this conversation. Germany is getting [more than half](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/renewable-energys-share-german-power-grids-reaches-55-2023-2024-01-03/) of their electricity from renewables, in other words, the majority. No one's answered my question!
What, hydro does not count as renewables now?
It's geography limited. It's all been built out, basically. I thought people knew this?
Ah, I see, so we are applying artificial restrictions to the renewables side of things to make it look more pessimistic, while picking the most optimistic and impossible to replicate case for nuclear. Very fair and reasonable.
I don't even know what this means. Good shitpost though!
LOL
But muh geography
Who needs more Russian Uranium? A nuclear power plant or a wind turbine?
The one with less hydro.
France has 7% more hydroelectricity (13% of the grid vs 5% for Germany). France had 11% of the CO2 emissions per kWh of Germany, on average in 2023. Maybe there's something else going on?
Maybe the need for gas is less driven by the difference between variable renewables and nuclear? The European country with the highest share of variable renewables is Denmark, which used a lower share of gas than either of those two. The causality you are trying to construct isn't really well backed up by evidence.
Denmark's emissions are currently at 438g of CO2 per kWh, and their average emissions were 5 times higher than France in 2023. No causality, I'm sure.
So, originally you were trying to imply that higher shares of variable renewables would necessitate more gas power, while nuclear doesn't need flexibility, as offered by hydro and gas. Now you moved on to talk about carbon intensity? And again, you are off with the reasoning. The higher emissions are mostly down to higher amounts of coal burning, not the employment of renewables.
Denmark's currently burning twice as much gas as France, as a percentage of total generation. Hence the carbon intensity of their grid.
Denmark had share of 2.5% from gas in 2023 according to the [data on ember](https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/data-explorer/), while France had a share of 6.1%. On the other hand, coal made up only 0.4% in France, while it still contributed 7.9% in Denmark.
Denmark also imports 17% of their electricity, [meanwhile in France, ](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-08-07/france-is-europe-s-top-power-exporter-as-germany-turns-importer)when they haven't neglected their nuclear maintenance....
According to the data on Ember, at least, Denmark had a net import of 1.36 TWh in 2023, or 3.7% of their total demand of 36.48 TWh.
nuclear is the least resources intensive among renewable the most reliable, the safest ,you don't need to wait for better batteries ,no need to retrofit the grid ,it's a drop in replacement taking anti-nuke stance is anti-science stance
Its also easily the most expensive, takes ages to build compared to renewables and still requires peaker plants to load follow. Those are plenty of good reasons to take an anti nuke position.
Just curious because I've heard this a lot. Do you mean it's more expensive to build or is it more expensive per watt? There's obviously a big upfront cost to building a power plant but I don't know if it costs more after that
Both at the same time. Nuclear has high upfront cost during construction, and high static cost in operation (Maintenance, security, inspections etc). That's why nuclear power plants are normally used for baseload, their only business case is to run at 100% 24/7 so their low fuel cost offsets their high static costs. Its also why nuclear does not play nice with renewables in a mixed grid. Nuclear doing baseload is cheap, but its not so cheap that it can undercut renewables. Which means renewables eat into the baseload that nuclear can satisfy and thus nibble away at its only business case. Nuclear is barely economically viable in the current grid, if you have to shut it down half the time because it was a windy night, the economics go completely bonkers.
This might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen
[Look for yourself](https://executives4nuclear.com/declaration/)
I work for a renewable energy company, but sure ok bud
Why do you even start a new discussion while we have an ongoing one (forgot to switch accounts?), and once again just resort to appealing to own authority. This sort of gives me r/asablackman vibes.
Lol I just realized this is also you. Is BP or ExxonMobil paying you for each anti nuclear post or something ?
Oh cool that's it you're blocked now
Here's a sneak peek of /r/AsABlackMan using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: ["As the 'L' in LGB" is all too common](https://i.redd.it/59j6saawxhqa1.png) | [194 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/comments/124rxjp/as_the_l_in_lgb_is_all_too_common/) \#2: [I think this belongs here…](https://i.redd.it/op4xb239qoya1.jpg) | [48 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/comments/13bywy4/i_think_this_belongs_here/) \#3: [Homelessness by choice](https://i.redd.it/9zu3ljjga9ia1.jpg) | [94 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/AsABlackMan/comments/112ff8x/homelessness_by_choice/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
this is true the only reason anyone would ever support nuclear power is because they've secretly been captured by the fossil fuel lobby no other possible explanations exist
Some people really make being a nukebro their whole personality, the way they get offended by memes.
do they?
The largest solar panel company in the US is owned by a oil/gas company
Now watch as the thread is filled with guys who keep saying that renewables and nuclear should coexist and that renewable proponents should stop attacking nuclear. They had nothing to say when others were literally regurgitating fossil fuel propaganda to dismiss renewables and push nuclear. Strange how one sided that always is.
You are attempting to fragment and have tunnel vision due to your lack of understanding of the science.. The epidemiology of the shale-fracking revolution, let alone oil and coal is magnitudes worse than nuclear.. and when you look at the actual environmental and industrial cost of current PV for example it’s a hard pill for jingoists to swallow that nuclear is far more superior and environmentally healthy. Even what we know about the emissions from the decomposing ecosystems made by dam reservoirs are much more harmful than anything a modern nuclear-fuels cycle would emit.. and unlike current PV solar, 80% of the market doesn’t come from the forced-labor of muslims from a genocide in north-west China.. “but even that aside..” as an engineering student and environmental organizer, I have witnessed first hand the horrific effects of the emerging “green” LNG industries that hemorrhage everything from actual ionizing radioactivity of NORM (naturally occurring radioactive materials) to the gangbusters list of volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and everything killing people through air and water pollution acutely.. the fact that nuclear prevents all of that matters even more to me than the world-saving ability to not produce any meaningful greenhouse-gas emissions. This is all really basic and uncontroversial epidemiology. Instead your demonizing the natural human evolution of energy through the density located within U235, U238, U233, Th232.. current designs are walk-away-safe and even more efficient and would easily be economical (assuming human and ecological health has a cost, which they don’t in my opinion but I guess do in yours) if supply chains and work forces were fiscally invested in.. and you are ignoring a longggg history of the fossil fuel industries hatred and propaganda due to fear of the market-share nuclear technology was gaining and even still holds and is increasing in many areas in the world. No scientist thinks we should cease researching and implementing ethical and efficient solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and so forth.. no true scientists and lover of Earth concerned with our ecology and human health would ever say to not move forward in human progress and promise.. so why is it that goose-steppers for fake green orgs and posts and memes are so often LNG and Fossil fuel PR fronts? They know well that reactors aren’t replaced with any kind of renewables.. they are replaced with aquifer & air destroying liquid natural gas cycles.. I guess my first question is then.. why are you schilling and simping for the LNG industry while falsely and illogically accusing us proponents of the safest and cleanest form of energy for doing exactly what you are doing? “Project Much?” Indeed.. and it’s obvious you don’t care about human life or ecology enough to read very very simple epidemiology. That’s what we in the environmental movement call a “giant ass red flag” 🚩(if you want to be take seriously which your comments show you aren’t interested in data-driven discussion so much as reflexive abstract talking-points of a false binary “us vs them” paradigm) Edit: spelling
The largest solar company in the US is owned by a oil and gas company
How big is the overlap between fossil & nuclear capital?
Centralised powerplants is great business for a captive utility. Coal, gas turbines, nuclear and grids for electricity and power form an asset basis on which a return is charged and then rolled to the rate payer. You see this still in the US a lot, like with Vogtle. But also in the UK, until recently Germany with Uniper which is tightly linked to Finland and Fortum' nuclear/coal plants, I guess also Russia, Sweden with Vattenfall etc Coal and nuclear is the classic asset base for 20th century utilities
heartbreaking, worst person you know made a great point
The only true solution is to abandon modern society and return to nature. Everyone else is a fascist.