Nuclear proponents use the same claim against the renewable industry. There isn't much to learn about it, besides the fact that the fossil fuel industry is a bogeyman for both.
It's not a great point, especially when, rather than donning your tinfoil, you can just look at where funds go.
But the claim doesn't make sense against the renewable industry. Just because they make the same claim doesn't make it a good claim.
I, as an individual, can deploy solar power and thus produce my own power. I cannot deploy nuclear power and thus produce my own power.
Well, my point is that you just have to see what some major fossil energy producers say and do. You don't need to believe anyone on this.
[1]: https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.htm... [2]: https://www.chevron.com/operations/new-energies [3]: https://totalenergies.com/group/ambition/being-world-class-p... [4]: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/gas-and-lo...
> Nuclear is an ideal green solution for the fossil fuel industry. Why? Well, building a power station is super hard because: it's expensive, takes years and no one wants a power station in their backyard.
This is not the case for renewables. How does pointing to what fossil fuel companies are investing in change that? Shell investing in solar means that suddenly I can't cheaply install solar in my backyard?
This has no relation to what you should or should not build in your backyard.
The fossil fuel industry could as well (tin foil hat on) be pushing the nuclear talking points to delay public opinion on the benefits of renewables until they are well aligned to take over the renewable industry. They are fighting to still be relevant as profit-making companies in a world where renewables take over, they are invested in renewables because they know the writing on the wall but they are late on their plans to be major players in the renewables industry and would definitely play public opinion to delay advancements in an area where they lack expertise, at least until they can build said expertise and take over the renewables market to keep being energy behemoths.
> They are fighting to still be relevant as profit-making companies in a world where renewables take over
So basically, if the fossil industry promotes nuclear, it's to sabotage the only viable option in order to sell more oil, but if they promote renewable, it's because they know it's the only path forward and they want to save their skin. Your theory is not falsifiable, that's a problem.
20 years ago nuclear was the best, quickest & cheapest path to decarbonization, so the fossil fuel industry would be anti-nuclear.
Today renewables are the best, quickest & cheapest path to decarbonization, so the fossil fuel industry would be anti-renewable.
And in neither decade is hydrogen the best path, so the fossil fuel industry is pro-hydrogen. Especially since hydrogen uses many of the same techs as fossil fuels and you can ramp up hydrogen with fossil fuel derived "grey hydrogen".
Right, I can't because hydrogen in any practical density is too dangerous or expensive. Despite decades of research. It might be made and used on the spot for an industrial process but that's it.
But of course, given the enormous anti-hydrogen campaign of the last decade, everything is currently at an immature level.
This does not inspire confidence, you know. It's not the "anti-hydrogen" campaign, it's lack of hydrogen industry honesty about price, features and limitations.
> But of course, given the enormous anti-hydrogen campaign of the last decade, everything is currently at an immature level.
You cannot go from zero to 100% instantly. There needs to be a period of scaling up, which has not been granted yet. This will come down in price drastically in the future. The main advantage is the lack of raw materials needed compared to a battery solution, only needing some tanks plus some electrical equipment not much bigger than what home solar people deal with.
We are technical people here no need to hesitate to name the materials or link information.
Hydrogen can indeed be stored in standard steel gas cylinders.
Such pointless debate only benefits the fossil fuel industry.
Given how much of the conversation is manipulated by bots and paid influencers... this is really suspicious.
They know the economics are horrendous. They need to manufacture consent from the public for lavish subsidies to compete with unsubsidized solar/wind/storage solutions.
Hence the "nuclear is the green jesus" tiktok videos and the disingenuous but endlessly repeated talking points, e.g.
* "what about when the sun isnt shining?"
* pumped storage geography is scarce
* lithium will run out soon
To date, the rebuttal to these points has been weak, and there is little investment in solving them, compared to investment in renewable production.
> to compete with unsubsidized solar/wind/storage solutions.
In Europe, there is no electricity production that isn't subsidized. That's pretty justified, since energy is the lifeblood of a modern society, and energy sectors can't be allowed to fail. I don't know as much about the US, but it seems to be the same [1].
To claim that any actor in this sector is not subsidized just shows that you don't understand the way electricity is funded.
[1]: https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/policies-and-regulat...
About once a week I post a link to the study that demonstrated that the geography for pumped storage is very plentiful.
For some reason when people complain that it's not (which happens constantly), they "heard it somewhere" or cite what is essentially pro-nuke/carbon-lobby propaganda.
So, I would say that the rebuttal to the rebuttal highlights the anti environmentalist credentials at the core of this propaganda talking point.
You want to have some form of manufactured scarcity.
If you have a single point of energy generation, that is expensive, and specialised, and relies on an element mined from the ground, it is great for the fossil fuel industry.
If you have a distributed form of energy generation, that is inexpensive, not specialised and is made from sand, it is not so great for the fossil fuel industry.
Nuclear is an ideal green solution for the fossil fuel industry. Why? Well, building a power station is super hard because: it's expensive, takes years and no one wants a power station in their backyard.
I can imagine fossil fuel execs recognising that the energy grid is going green despite all of their lobbying. So the game then becomes to delay the inevitable as long as you can, so that you can extract as much money as you can from fossil fuels.
[1]: I listened to a lot of the Drilled podcast by Amy Westervelt in the early days of the pandemic https://www.drilled.media/drilled-podcast/