4 ms·

^ This. Also, It's the Wall Street Journal, so consider the source, its own by Rupert Murdoch, whose media companies, until very recently were climate change de

^ This. Also, It's the Wall Street Journal, so consider the source, its own by Rupert Murdoch, whose media companies, until very recently were climate change deniers, so from a rather crude sort of climate denialism, they will likely move to supporting technical "climate fixes" spruiked by the fossil fuel industries. This is a more subtle way of sabotaging real climate action.

buu700 5y ago
Why do you say that? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious what the fossil fuel industry might have to gain from pushing adoption of nuclear power.
- weatherlight 5y ago
  WSJ pushes a lot of "Carbon Capture" stories and Nuclear fusion stories. (Chevron is one of Nuclear Fusion's biggest investors) Each day more than 2 million people pick up a copy of The Wall Street Journal or read it online, more than any other newspaper in the country, except USA Today, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. “More than three-fourths of them have a college degree, and their average household income is $234,909. These are affluent individuals who are executives or business owners. The Wallstreet Journal will never push an idea unless there's money to be made by its investors or affiliates, in the short term. and in the short term, I mean over 10 or 15 years. A forest has more value, in the short term, cut down than is does if left alone. Petrochemicals have more value, in the short term, if they are being pumped, refined, and processed (and then that carbon is captured) than it were just left alone to begin with. The absolute truth about dealing with the current climate crisis is that doing it right will not be profitable, in the short term, it will be an enormous undertaking across many fronts, and scientific disciplines, political agreements across nations states, etc.
goatlover 5y ago
So building new nuclear power plants, expanding carbon capture technology, and planting more trees are not real climate action? What exactly is real climate action? Hoping that renewables and batter technology can scale up to completely decarbonize energy use?
- weatherlight 5y ago
  Investing in less CO2 intensive building technologies. (The carbon dioxide emissions from the production of concrete are so high that if concrete were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of CO2 behind China and the United States.)The central ingredient in concrete is cement, which is made by crushing limestone and clay and adding iron ore or ash. The mixture is heated in a kiln to more than 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit, a process that consumes vast quantities of fossil fuel. When heated, the calcium carbonate in limestone breaks into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide, which is released into the air. The calcium oxide is ground with limestone and gypsum to make cement. Half of the CO2 emissions in the production of concrete come from the reaction that breaks up the calcium carbonate and the other half from the fossil fuels required to heat the kilns and transport the materials. Things we should also consider. Getting rid of cars. Investment in mass International and intranational public transit. Meat alternatives that require less physical space. reining in massive fishing fleets (half the oxygen and half the carbon captured comes from the ecological systems in the ocean which we ravage) Invest in renewable energy, like tidal, solar, geothermal, etc Even if we were to go 100% nuclear tomorrow (which just isn't possible, we'd (the entirety of earth) would run out of nuclear fuel in 90 years), that would account for about 1/4 the carbon emissions of the planet per year. Climate change is more than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's about how we as a species, integrate with the rest of the species on this planet.
erentz 5y ago
Why do you think the fossil fuel industry wants nuclear power? How do they benefit? They appear to have gained immensely from the halt of nuclear power deployment in the west. E.g. France famously decarbonised it's electric grid in a couple of decades after 1970s due to the energy crisis using nuclear power. How did this help fossil fuel companies? On the other hand, Germany has continued to be more reliant on coal and natural gas for electricity generation after deciding to abandon nuclear power post-Fukushima and pursue energiewende. Or remember BP, an oil and gas company, and it's whole Beyond Petroleum thing trying to make people believe it was into renewables? If we are going to hypothesize conspiracies, then just looking purely at outcomes over recent decades, it would make more sense that the fossil fuel industry supports RE and RE targets, rather than CO2 targets or nuclear power, because the former works out far more favorably than the latter for their industry.
- weatherlight 5y ago
  Electricity is only 28% of global emissions. If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world’s electricity from about 445 power reactors. This isn't hard math.
  - erentz 5y ago
    > Electricity is only 28% of global emissions. Then how do you intend to decarbonize other energy uses without electricity? Want to replace gas furnaces with heat pumps? electricity. Produce hydrogen for shipping or CO2 free steel? Electricity. Charge everyones car battery? Electricity. So on, right? > This isn't hard math. Or 4 billion years: https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...
- andygates 5y ago
  The carbon industry wants delay on decarbonisation. New nuclear projects are poster children for delay, because the industry has been mostly incompetent at shipping and lacks urgency.

buu700 5y ago

Why do you say that? Not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious what the fossil fuel industry might have to gain from pushing adoption of nuclear power.

weatherlight 5y ago
WSJ pushes a lot of "Carbon Capture" stories and Nuclear fusion stories. (Chevron is one of Nuclear Fusion's biggest investors) Each day more than 2 million people pick up a copy of The Wall Street Journal or read it online, more than any other newspaper in the country, except USA Today, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. “More than three-fourths of them have a college degree, and their average household income is $234,909. These are affluent individuals who are executives or business owners. The Wallstreet Journal will never push an idea unless there's money to be made by its investors or affiliates, in the short term. and in the short term, I mean over 10 or 15 years. A forest has more value, in the short term, cut down than is does if left alone. Petrochemicals have more value, in the short term, if they are being pumped, refined, and processed (and then that carbon is captured) than it were just left alone to begin with. The absolute truth about dealing with the current climate crisis is that doing it right will not be profitable, in the short term, it will be an enormous undertaking across many fronts, and scientific disciplines, political agreements across nations states, etc.

goatlover 5y ago

So building new nuclear power plants, expanding carbon capture technology, and planting more trees are not real climate action? What exactly is real climate action? Hoping that renewables and batter technology can scale up to completely decarbonize energy use?

weatherlight 5y ago
Investing in less CO2 intensive building technologies. (The carbon dioxide emissions from the production of concrete are so high that if concrete were a country, it would be the third-largest emitter of CO2 behind China and the United States.)The central ingredient in concrete is cement, which is made by crushing limestone and clay and adding iron ore or ash. The mixture is heated in a kiln to more than 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit, a process that consumes vast quantities of fossil fuel. When heated, the calcium carbonate in limestone breaks into calcium oxide and carbon dioxide, which is released into the air. The calcium oxide is ground with limestone and gypsum to make cement. Half of the CO2 emissions in the production of concrete come from the reaction that breaks up the calcium carbonate and the other half from the fossil fuels required to heat the kilns and transport the materials. Things we should also consider. Getting rid of cars. Investment in mass International and intranational public transit. Meat alternatives that require less physical space. reining in massive fishing fleets (half the oxygen and half the carbon captured comes from the ecological systems in the ocean which we ravage) Invest in renewable energy, like tidal, solar, geothermal, etc Even if we were to go 100% nuclear tomorrow (which just isn't possible, we'd (the entirety of earth) would run out of nuclear fuel in 90 years), that would account for about 1/4 the carbon emissions of the planet per year. Climate change is more than just the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's about how we as a species, integrate with the rest of the species on this planet.

erentz 5y ago

Why do you think the fossil fuel industry wants nuclear power? How do they benefit? They appear to have gained immensely from the halt of nuclear power deployment in the west. E.g. France famously decarbonised it's electric grid in a couple of decades after 1970s due to the energy crisis using nuclear power. How did this help fossil fuel companies? On the other hand, Germany has continued to be more reliant on coal and natural gas for electricity generation after deciding to abandon nuclear power post-Fukushima and pursue energiewende. Or remember BP, an oil and gas company, and it's whole Beyond Petroleum thing trying to make people believe it was into renewables? If we are going to hypothesize conspiracies, then just looking purely at outcomes over recent decades, it would make more sense that the fossil fuel industry supports RE and RE targets, rather than CO2 targets or nuclear power, because the former works out far more favorably than the latter for their industry.

weatherlight 5y ago
Electricity is only 28% of global emissions. If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world’s electricity from about 445 power reactors. This isn't hard math.
- erentz 5y ago
  > Electricity is only 28% of global emissions. Then how do you intend to decarbonize other energy uses without electricity? Want to replace gas furnaces with heat pumps? electricity. Produce hydrogen for shipping or CO2 free steel? Electricity. Charge everyones car battery? Electricity. So on, right? > This isn't hard math. Or 4 billion years: https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html https://whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-...
andygates 5y ago
The carbon industry wants delay on decarbonisation. New nuclear projects are poster children for delay, because the industry has been mostly incompetent at shipping and lacks urgency.