8 ms·

It’s the tell. Lots of reports pointing out Russia funds environmental groups. China does the same - but more openly - advertising cheap solar and wind (neithe

It’s the tell. Lots of reports pointing out Russia funds environmental groups. China does the same - but more openly - advertising cheap solar and wind (neither function as well as nuclear). https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/596304-investigate-russias-covert-funding-of-us-anti-fossil-fuel-groups/ https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/596304-invest...

mountainb 4y ago
The Gulf countries do, too, such as when the UAE paid Matt Damon for an anti-fracking film https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/49218229 https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/49218229 I don’t blame them for playing the game well.
- erlich 4y ago
  I don't think people realize that when you have a huge commodity income stream under threat of ceasing to exist, it's quite realistic to spend a huge percentage of this on lobbying to stretch it as far as it will go.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Such as by constantly filling the internet with lies about how the technologies that are eating 1% of your market share per year, and growing by 20-40% per year can't possibly solve the problem and we must divert all funding from it to a technology that costs 3x as much, has consistently gotten more expensive with time, and can't scale?
- fakedang 4y ago
  Tbf, fracking does have proven issues with geological stability and soil contamination. But it would be very hypocritical of the UAE to go on an anti-nuclear tirade, since they themselves use nuclear energy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
matthewdgreen 4y ago
Right now wind and solar have dropped so much in price that they represent a serious threat to fossil fuels on a short time frame. Have all storage problems been worked out? No. But even moving 50% of our current fossil sources to renewables would have a huge impact on the profits of those industries and it’s now completely feasible in the short term and very cheap. If I was in the fossil fuel extraction industry I’d be throwing every astroturfing dollar into FUD calling for those plans to be abandoned because “only nuclear works.” PS I’m 100% supportive of a mix that includes cheap renewables and more costly nuclear baseload. It’s when you see comments promoting nuclear and renewables as somehow in opposition, that’s the tell.
- lettergram 4y ago
  > Right now wind and solar have dropped so much in price that they represent a serious threat to fossil fuels on a short time frame. I recommend sitting down and calculating the input cost for solar / wind. It's being subsidized substantially. There aren't even enough materials currently mined to support the US switching to mostly (>50%) solar / wind. Silver/gold/copper/nickle prices would go up an order of magnitude, for instance. I'm for cheap energy - period. It's directly correlated with improvements in life. If solar / wind get us there, great. If nuclear improves it, let's do it. Right now natural gas is also very cheap, should be drilling as much as we can. The more we maximize growth and cheap energy now, the quicker we advance technology, innovation and automation.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    Have you calculated the costs of nuclear without government subsidies? As best I understand, it’s completely unsupportable.
    - lettergram 4y ago
      It varies wildly by government and if you built at scale costs would drop dramatically as they did in the French and Russian build outs.
EdwardCoffin 4y ago
That article is an opinion piece written by a resident of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a far right think tank with ties to the Koch Brothers.
- collyw 4y ago
  Oh no, "not far right"! Make sure you don't listen to that opinion!
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Tell me how nuclear can be more than 2% of the solution? Where does the Uranium come from?

mountainb 4y ago

The Gulf countries do, too, such as when the UAE paid Matt Damon for an anti-fracking film https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/49218229 https://www.cnbc.com/amp/id/49218229 I don’t blame them for playing the game well.

erlich 4y ago
I don't think people realize that when you have a huge commodity income stream under threat of ceasing to exist, it's quite realistic to spend a huge percentage of this on lobbying to stretch it as far as it will go.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Such as by constantly filling the internet with lies about how the technologies that are eating 1% of your market share per year, and growing by 20-40% per year can't possibly solve the problem and we must divert all funding from it to a technology that costs 3x as much, has consistently gotten more expensive with time, and can't scale?
fakedang 4y ago
Tbf, fracking does have proven issues with geological stability and soil contamination. But it would be very hypocritical of the UAE to go on an anti-nuclear tirade, since they themselves use nuclear energy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant

matthewdgreen 4y ago

Right now wind and solar have dropped so much in price that they represent a serious threat to fossil fuels on a short time frame. Have all storage problems been worked out? No. But even moving 50% of our current fossil sources to renewables would have a huge impact on the profits of those industries and it’s now completely feasible in the short term and very cheap. If I was in the fossil fuel extraction industry I’d be throwing every astroturfing dollar into FUD calling for those plans to be abandoned because “only nuclear works.” PS I’m 100% supportive of a mix that includes cheap renewables and more costly nuclear baseload. It’s when you see comments promoting nuclear and renewables as somehow in opposition, that’s the tell.

lettergram 4y ago
> Right now wind and solar have dropped so much in price that they represent a serious threat to fossil fuels on a short time frame. I recommend sitting down and calculating the input cost for solar / wind. It's being subsidized substantially. There aren't even enough materials currently mined to support the US switching to mostly (>50%) solar / wind. Silver/gold/copper/nickle prices would go up an order of magnitude, for instance. I'm for cheap energy - period. It's directly correlated with improvements in life. If solar / wind get us there, great. If nuclear improves it, let's do it. Right now natural gas is also very cheap, should be drilling as much as we can. The more we maximize growth and cheap energy now, the quicker we advance technology, innovation and automation.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  Have you calculated the costs of nuclear without government subsidies? As best I understand, it’s completely unsupportable.
  - lettergram 4y ago
    It varies wildly by government and if you built at scale costs would drop dramatically as they did in the French and Russian build outs.

EdwardCoffin 4y ago

That article is an opinion piece written by a resident of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a far right think tank with ties to the Koch Brothers.

collyw 4y ago
Oh no, "not far right"! Make sure you don't listen to that opinion!

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Tell me how nuclear can be more than 2% of the solution? Where does the Uranium come from?