5 ms·

If you’re being incredibly charitable, it’s throwing the fossil fuel industry a lifesaver because they fumbled the ball on the transition to renewables and it w

by kdtsh 4y ago

If you’re being incredibly charitable, it’s throwing the fossil fuel industry a lifesaver because they fumbled the ball on the transition to renewables and it won’t be possible for them to compete in the way they have previously (by being market makers)x It’s not quite a make-work scheme, but it’s a way for industry and government to transition energy sources while maintaining the market status quo. Ultimately if we decarbonise and transition to renewable green energy we will be in a much better place, but I hope the transition sees the fossil fuel giants lose their preeminence. Things like green hydrogen give them a possible way of hanging onto something like model they use now. This is all very charitable though - it’s just as likely that this is a totally cynical bait and switch.

einpoklum 4y ago
> they fumbled the ball I think you're really stretching charitableness to its limits here... (groan)
- vlovich123 4y ago
  Yeah. The fossil fuel companies didn’t fumble anything. They’ve actively been involved in hindering nuclear [1] and they invest in Wind and Solar because it’s an ineffective way to actually displace their main business but offers enough of a hedge to collect government subsidies they’d otherwise not have access to. These are multi-billion dollar companies in a slow-moving capital intensive market. This isn’t like tech which is easily capitalized and can move quickly to disrupt incumbents [2]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=13f11d437453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f... [2] Even that isn’t easy so much - Microsoft, Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon have remained at the top for about a decade and it’s unlikely their dominance will be disrupted (even Microsoft which lost its way for a while to Google came back to be number one or two). Basically you can disrupt legacy businesses that haven’t adapted to tech or don’t have a multi-national company in the mix. But disrupting multi-national tech companies is unlikely at this point. Hence why Meta is acting so desperate with MR - Apple, Google, and regulators are an active threat to their continued growth / ability to survive at all. If you own the platform, this becomes less of a concern since competitors can’t push around your business model. Regulators basically just solidify/ossify your position since anyone that reaches a much lower level than these companies are at today suddenly becomes subject to regulation that encumbers them the same way that the larger company is encumbered (ie the intent is largely to slow them down), except this happens to a competitor much earlier in their lifecycle since these companies have had several years of additional growth and none of the limits scale the legislation to account for that (not that it matters in practice because it’s unlikely anyone is going to fund a serious attempt to take on a large behemoth - see DuckDuckGo’s growth struggles and they haven’t even gotten large enough to branch out like Google has).
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > they invest in Wind and Solar because it’s an ineffective way to actually displace their main business This is completely delusional. There was more new net capacity in solar installed in 2022 than nuclear has ever delivered by around 50%. Wind exceeded the historical nuclear max by 30%. And the balance of hydro/geothermal/etc came close to matching it as well. Pipelined production will see the first two doubling in the next few years.
  - einpoklum 4y ago
    I don't understand why you're trying to take my comment on this weird tangent. What the fossil fuel companies did was hide what they knew about global warming and manipulate governments into continued investment in reliance on fossil fuels. It's not like it's all a big conspiracy against nuclear. Also, as other commenters indicate, wind and solar are quite effective in displacing their business, even if not entirely (due to the intermittency problem) - as they are cheaper, renewable, safer, don't have the waste issues and do not involve problematic geo-politics for the fuel. Not to mention how wind and solar don't preclude the use of nuclear for night-time generation.
Symmetry 4y ago
Also, green hydrogen involves things the fossil fuel industry has experience with, like long pipelines.

by kdtsh 4y ago

einpoklum 4y ago

> they fumbled the ball I think you're really stretching charitableness to its limits here... (groan)

vlovich123 4y ago
Yeah. The fossil fuel companies didn’t fumble anything. They’ve actively been involved in hindering nuclear [1] and they invest in Wind and Solar because it’s an ineffective way to actually displace their main business but offers enough of a hedge to collect government subsidies they’d otherwise not have access to. These are multi-billion dollar companies in a slow-moving capital intensive market. This isn’t like tech which is easily capitalized and can move quickly to disrupt incumbents [2]. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=13f11d437453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f... [2] Even that isn’t easy so much - Microsoft, Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon have remained at the top for about a decade and it’s unlikely their dominance will be disrupted (even Microsoft which lost its way for a while to Google came back to be number one or two). Basically you can disrupt legacy businesses that haven’t adapted to tech or don’t have a multi-national company in the mix. But disrupting multi-national tech companies is unlikely at this point. Hence why Meta is acting so desperate with MR - Apple, Google, and regulators are an active threat to their continued growth / ability to survive at all. If you own the platform, this becomes less of a concern since competitors can’t push around your business model. Regulators basically just solidify/ossify your position since anyone that reaches a much lower level than these companies are at today suddenly becomes subject to regulation that encumbers them the same way that the larger company is encumbered (ie the intent is largely to slow them down), except this happens to a competitor much earlier in their lifecycle since these companies have had several years of additional growth and none of the limits scale the legislation to account for that (not that it matters in practice because it’s unlikely anyone is going to fund a serious attempt to take on a large behemoth - see DuckDuckGo’s growth struggles and they haven’t even gotten large enough to branch out like Google has).
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > they invest in Wind and Solar because it’s an ineffective way to actually displace their main business This is completely delusional. There was more new net capacity in solar installed in 2022 than nuclear has ever delivered by around 50%. Wind exceeded the historical nuclear max by 30%. And the balance of hydro/geothermal/etc came close to matching it as well. Pipelined production will see the first two doubling in the next few years.
- einpoklum 4y ago
  I don't understand why you're trying to take my comment on this weird tangent. What the fossil fuel companies did was hide what they knew about global warming and manipulate governments into continued investment in reliance on fossil fuels. It's not like it's all a big conspiracy against nuclear. Also, as other commenters indicate, wind and solar are quite effective in displacing their business, even if not entirely (due to the intermittency problem) - as they are cheaper, renewable, safer, don't have the waste issues and do not involve problematic geo-politics for the fuel. Not to mention how wind and solar don't preclude the use of nuclear for night-time generation.

Symmetry 4y ago

Also, green hydrogen involves things the fossil fuel industry has experience with, like long pipelines.