• TheBaldFox
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Yeah, fossil fuel companies have spent the last 70 years propagandizing against nuclear because it’s their largest threat.

    • Knusper@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sure, but hopefully you have no trouble believing that simultaneously, nuclear power companies and governments wanting to use nuclear, despite the risks, have been propagandizing for nuclear.

      Pro-nuclear folks are often completely unaccepting of there being risks and externalized costs, which feels to me like they’re subject to propaganda (notwithstanding that I’m likely subject to different propaganda).

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Nuclear power companies are rare, and badly funded. Most civilian nuclear programs are/were state-sponsored. Throughout the cold war, the main financial driver was a need for enriched plutonium and uranium for obvious applications.

        Now that we have been (mostly) in an era of nuclear deproliferation for over 30 years, there is little to no money behind nuclear lobbying (though nuclear-armed powers are much less likely to scale back civilian nuclear production, they also don’t have a military need to increase it). Weapons programs aside, “Big Atom” does not exist (unlike Big Oil or Big Coal who have billions of dollars to spend on lobbying annually).
        Countries like Belgium or Germany even shuttered perfectly serviceable and economically viable NPP on ideological grounds FFS.

        Now green field nuclear might not be a sound investment anymore (arguable, and depending on unreliable predictions about our future ability to do grid-scale battery storage to overcome intermittency issues as well as our willingness to rely on fossil gas instead).
        But as someone living in a country whose nuclear program got fucked by stupid panicky rhetoric, I can tell you from experience that until the energy crisis of last year, “nuclear good” was a fringe “right wing” opinion held almost exclusively by people for who economics matters more than ecology (because traditional ecologists truly believe that nuclear waste is always worse than GHG emissions).

        Yoyoing gas prices and the threat of an infrastructure collapse recently brought nuclear back into a more mainstream appeal, but unfortunately far too late to seriously consider building new NPPs.

    • Not quite. They initially did, but these days they fund the pro-nuclear groups more because it causes discussion between the pro-nuclear groups and the pro-renewables groups. This means nothing of substance really gets done. Moreover, they prefer nuclear over renewables because nuclear takes a lot longer to build. They don’t mind another 15-20 years of fossil fuels that a nuclear-heavy strategy gives them, whereas renewables can be deployed right now which hurts their bottom line more.