2 ms·

It is very popular to pin this all on "greens." While it's partially true, blaming the greens and now foreign powers is also a very convenient narrative for th

It is very popular to pin this all on "greens." While it's partially true, blaming the greens and now foreign powers is also a very convenient narrative for the fossil fuel industry. There is more to the story. Sometimes the enemy is closer to home. > As part of reporting called “Pay Dirt,” The Daily Beast’s Lachlan Markay released some exclusive research entitled “Inside the Gas Industry’s Plan to Sink Nuclear Power,” about the corporate front groups that arose to do political battle over proposals by a number of states to prop up nuclear power plants struggling in the wake of dirt-cheap natural gas. In particular, he delved deep into the American Petroleum Institute’s organization of opposition to Bill 11, Pennsylvania’s proposed legislation to stave off financial ruin for Pennsylvania’s nuclear power plants through an initiative called No Nuclear Bailouts. Markay was able to access the API’s Power point plan detailing a host of activities, including “grassroots” activism, legislator “intercepts, and the engagement of third-party groups and “key influencers” in its attempt to sway policymakers. This is just one example of how the API has sought to bolster its own market share by working to undermine nuclear energy. https://climatecoalition.org/who-opposes-nuclear-energy/ https://climatecoalition.org/who-opposes-nuclear-energy/

panick21_ 4y ago
Yes, but see the thing here is that literally nobody things gas, oil and coal would ever like nuclear. Their hostility was foregone conclusion from the very moment of the invention of nuclear power. To make nuclear power successful, support from the progressive part of society would have been required. Nuclear was more expensive then coal but not by that much and the benefits of nuclear were huge in terms of environment. But if you have an environmental movement who is extremely against nuclear power, there is just very little left. The greens acted as if the nuclear industry was some juggernaut, when in effect it was tiny compared to fossil industry. The early environmental opposition then influenced the overall leftist or liberal movement in general and nuclear was basically dead. Neither having strong support on the right or left.
- consumer451 4y ago
  > The greens acted as if the nuclear industry was some juggernaut, when in effect it was tiny compared to fossil industry. It was actually an integral part of the military industrial complex, not exactly "tiny." That might have had something to do with the political alignment. But as usual, looking at this situation while wearing standard issue left/right political blinders is less than helpful.
- pydry 4y ago
  >Nuclear was more expensive then coal but not by that much About 5x. The environmental movement didnt make it cripplingly expensive.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    Actually, the public anti nuclear stance and fear-mongering lead to significant political changes. It wasn't just the environmental movement, it was much more broad and wide spread. No politicians want to be seen a pro-nuclear. The regulatory system totally changed, from the AEC to a much more restrictive and passive NRC. There is a clear change in the history of nuclear with before that all sorts of interesting research and new reactors, since then hardly anything. The regulatory change isn't the only factor, but its one important factor. A larger non-nuclear issue is simply that in the US any large scale project is extremely expensive, nuclear or not. And the regulatory system makes is insanely hard to license any other kind of reactor in the US. And if you want to regulated something new, you have to pay the regulator for all of their time. And they don't give you a timeline. Without billion $ and investors willing to not know what is gone happen for many, many years, alternative reactors are essentially impossible. Sadly the US is about the only market that is theoretically free enough where any market driven innovation could actually happen.

panick21_ 4y ago

Yes, but see the thing here is that literally nobody things gas, oil and coal would ever like nuclear. Their hostility was foregone conclusion from the very moment of the invention of nuclear power. To make nuclear power successful, support from the progressive part of society would have been required. Nuclear was more expensive then coal but not by that much and the benefits of nuclear were huge in terms of environment. But if you have an environmental movement who is extremely against nuclear power, there is just very little left. The greens acted as if the nuclear industry was some juggernaut, when in effect it was tiny compared to fossil industry. The early environmental opposition then influenced the overall leftist or liberal movement in general and nuclear was basically dead. Neither having strong support on the right or left.

consumer451 4y ago
> The greens acted as if the nuclear industry was some juggernaut, when in effect it was tiny compared to fossil industry. It was actually an integral part of the military industrial complex, not exactly "tiny." That might have had something to do with the political alignment. But as usual, looking at this situation while wearing standard issue left/right political blinders is less than helpful.
pydry 4y ago
>Nuclear was more expensive then coal but not by that much About 5x. The environmental movement didnt make it cripplingly expensive.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  Actually, the public anti nuclear stance and fear-mongering lead to significant political changes. It wasn't just the environmental movement, it was much more broad and wide spread. No politicians want to be seen a pro-nuclear. The regulatory system totally changed, from the AEC to a much more restrictive and passive NRC. There is a clear change in the history of nuclear with before that all sorts of interesting research and new reactors, since then hardly anything. The regulatory change isn't the only factor, but its one important factor. A larger non-nuclear issue is simply that in the US any large scale project is extremely expensive, nuclear or not. And the regulatory system makes is insanely hard to license any other kind of reactor in the US. And if you want to regulated something new, you have to pay the regulator for all of their time. And they don't give you a timeline. Without billion $ and investors willing to not know what is gone happen for many, many years, alternative reactors are essentially impossible. Sadly the US is about the only market that is theoretically free enough where any market driven innovation could actually happen.