3 ms·

If protesting vigorously, particularly by Greenpeace, killed nuclear energy, why isn't it working for fossil fuels?

prepend 2y ago
There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels. And it’s more distributed with way more active sites than nuclear. It takes like, what, 15 years to bring a reactor online? A well can be dug and producing in 1-2 years and there are tens of thousands of them.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels Ding ding ding. You've found who/what killed nuclear. They even managed to frame the environmentalists.
  - akimbostrawman 2y ago
    Is it really framing when they voluntarily rally against it for decades while also gaining from it. At best they seem like useful idiots.
    - triceratops 2y ago
      What else would you call it? Words don't end profitable businesses. Especially not in the energy industry.
      - prepend 2y ago
        Perhaps someone should tell this to Greenpeace and their donors. Seems all that protesting and $660m judgement is for naught. According to you.
        triceratops 2y ago
        > Seems all that protesting... is for naught. According to you. The pipeline went live in 2017. Did protesting work?
criddell 2y ago
Because people are already afraid of nuclear. It doesn’t take much to stoke those fires. Oil and gasoline are things that people are more familiar and comfortable with.
- triceratops 2y ago
  You're forgetting money. O&G were, and continue to be, cheaper than nuclear so the slander stuck. The fossil fuel industry is trying the same playbook against solar power now. For a long time because solar + batteries were more expensive they didn't have to work very hard at it.
Aloisius 2y ago
Regular people don't own nuclear power plants. Banning new ones from being built had little immediate personal impact. Regular people do own devices that use fossil fuels. Banning them means people would immediately have to replace vehicles, water heaters, heaters, stoves, ovens, grills, generators, etc. Raising fuel prices means people immediately feel it.

There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels. And it’s more distributed with way more active sites than nuclear. It takes like, what, 15 years to bring a reactor online? A well can be dug and producing in 1-2 years and there are tens of thousands of them.

triceratops 2y ago
> There’s a lot more money in fossil fuels Ding ding ding. You've found who/what killed nuclear. They even managed to frame the environmentalists.
- akimbostrawman 2y ago
  Is it really framing when they voluntarily rally against it for decades while also gaining from it. At best they seem like useful idiots.
  - triceratops 2y ago
    What else would you call it? Words don't end profitable businesses. Especially not in the energy industry.
    - prepend 2y ago
      Perhaps someone should tell this to Greenpeace and their donors. Seems all that protesting and $660m judgement is for naught. According to you.
      - triceratops 2y ago
        > Seems all that protesting... is for naught. According to you. The pipeline went live in 2017. Did protesting work?

criddell 2y ago

Because people are already afraid of nuclear. It doesn’t take much to stoke those fires. Oil and gasoline are things that people are more familiar and comfortable with.

triceratops 2y ago
You're forgetting money. O&G were, and continue to be, cheaper than nuclear so the slander stuck. The fossil fuel industry is trying the same playbook against solar power now. For a long time because solar + batteries were more expensive they didn't have to work very hard at it.

Aloisius 2y ago

Regular people don't own nuclear power plants. Banning new ones from being built had little immediate personal impact. Regular people do own devices that use fossil fuels. Banning them means people would immediately have to replace vehicles, water heaters, heaters, stoves, ovens, grills, generators, etc. Raising fuel prices means people immediately feel it.