3 ms·

>20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. The h

>20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. The histories of pretty much every green party in the western world and their anti-nuclear activism suggests otherwise.

pjc50 1y ago
Reminder that anti-nuclear activism started against nuclear weapons and nuclear dumping, and then after Chernobyl the realization that it was possible to mess up agriculture across a continent from the failure of a single plant. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 Greenpeace spent years campaigning against dumping waste at sea. In a reasonably free market, which doesn't exist for electricity, solar would win handily.. but this is after decades of subsidized development and incremental improvement by Chinese wafer factories.
- HideousKojima 1y ago
  Anti-nuclear power activism started before Chernobyl, see New Zealand banning nuclear powered ships at their ports in 1984 for one of many examples.
- CurtHagenlocher 1y ago
  In the United States, anti-nuclear activism predates both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance for two examples.
  - natmaka 1y ago
    Indeed, however it was deemed way more convincing by more and more people after each nuclear accident.
jayd16 1y ago
You ever notice how "green parties" are somehow so incredibly effective against nuclear and not effective against fossil fuels? Why do you think that is? Somehow I'm not convinced its the activism holding nuclear back.
- HideousKojima 1y ago
  Gas and oil based power generation is far simpler than nuclear. Regulatory barriers against nuclear power are far more detrimental to nuclear as a result because the issues compound.
- k_g_b_ 1y ago
  Correct, it basically never was. E.g. for Germany - the most high profile nuclear exits: - nuclear and fossile energy producers were the exact same companies - why would they fund activists to campaign against their own assets? - coal mining and plant employees were (around the first exit) part of a significant worker voter population, especially for the social democrats but to a lesser degree for the conservatives, too. The largest state was heavily dependent on the coal industry and SPD/CDU politicians regularly moved to/from leadership positions in coal-dependent energy producers. No party except possibly the Greens would have remotely touched a coal exit and discussions around that only seriously started after the second (conservative reversal reversal) nuclear exit. - gas and nuclear fuel in major quantities came from Russia, from different Russian state companies - why would they cut into each other's business by funding activists? They were happy for Germany to depend on them in any and all ways. - the second nuclear exit was a political play for voter sentiment by conservatives after Fukushima - they didn't even try to explain why nuclear should be kept for all the reasons they reversed the previous exit and still killed of the nascent booming solar/wind industry - they certainly were not renewables activists. Just recently the reverse happened as part of conservatives pre-election promises to rebuild nuclear as a play for voter sentiment due to temporarily high (war-dependent, already normalized) energy prices. It wasn't important enough for them to include in the government coalition plans in any way whatsoever - the main conservative agitator for nuclear has now had to agree that nuclear is economically dead. The reality is that nuclear in Germany was already dead when the first exit was voted on - nobody had built plants in a long time, nobody had any plans to build them. If not for the exit plans to start a renewables transition, fossil usage would be far higher today and because of the exit reversal and delay in coal exit due to the conservatives it is much higher today than it needed to be and we're much more dependent on Chinese manufacturers, too. At most activists were somewhat involved in voter sentiment at some points, but it wasn't particularly crucial versus the actual economic and political realities.
spookie 1y ago
Green Parties are such a farce for the most part. They serve other purposes, not aligned with what you really want or defend ;)
- mmooss 1y ago
  Right-wing parties and the center-left have been highly effective allies in getting people to demonize and ridicule the progressive left. The reason is, I think, that the progressives have rationally better policies - ones that become mainstream decades later, including much of what is mainstream now - so by demonizing the progressives the center and right prevent people from actually considering the policies.
  - Duwensatzaj 1y ago
    Coercive eugenics used to be a progressive platform. More recently progressive prosecutors have been tried and the results are pretty clear they lead to increased crime. Consider perhaps the progressive policies have been considered and rejected for good reasons.
    - mmooss 1y ago
      > More recently progressive prosecutors have been tried and the results are pretty clear they lead to increased crime. Crime increases were across the country, regardless of the politics of the prosecutor. They are believed to be tied to the pandemic. In places where progressive DAs remain, crime has subsequently decreased to historic lows - just like the rest of the country.
      - Duwensatzaj 1y ago
        Wrong. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/VBQCPEMU5RZVASBS93WP?target=10.1111/1745-9133.12666 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/VBQCPEMU5RZVASBS93WP?t...
        mmooss 1y ago

pjc50 1y ago

Reminder that anti-nuclear activism started against nuclear weapons and nuclear dumping, and then after Chernobyl the realization that it was possible to mess up agriculture across a continent from the failure of a single plant. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372 Greenpeace spent years campaigning against dumping waste at sea. In a reasonably free market, which doesn't exist for electricity, solar would win handily.. but this is after decades of subsidized development and incremental improvement by Chinese wafer factories.

HideousKojima 1y ago
Anti-nuclear power activism started before Chernobyl, see New Zealand banning nuclear powered ships at their ports in 1984 for one of many examples.
CurtHagenlocher 1y ago
In the United States, anti-nuclear activism predates both Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clamshell_Alliance and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abalone_Alliance for two examples.
- natmaka 1y ago
  Indeed, however it was deemed way more convincing by more and more people after each nuclear accident.

jayd16 1y ago

You ever notice how "green parties" are somehow so incredibly effective against nuclear and not effective against fossil fuels? Why do you think that is? Somehow I'm not convinced its the activism holding nuclear back.

HideousKojima 1y ago
Gas and oil based power generation is far simpler than nuclear. Regulatory barriers against nuclear power are far more detrimental to nuclear as a result because the issues compound.
k_g_b_ 1y ago
Correct, it basically never was. E.g. for Germany - the most high profile nuclear exits: - nuclear and fossile energy producers were the exact same companies - why would they fund activists to campaign against their own assets? - coal mining and plant employees were (around the first exit) part of a significant worker voter population, especially for the social democrats but to a lesser degree for the conservatives, too. The largest state was heavily dependent on the coal industry and SPD/CDU politicians regularly moved to/from leadership positions in coal-dependent energy producers. No party except possibly the Greens would have remotely touched a coal exit and discussions around that only seriously started after the second (conservative reversal reversal) nuclear exit. - gas and nuclear fuel in major quantities came from Russia, from different Russian state companies - why would they cut into each other's business by funding activists? They were happy for Germany to depend on them in any and all ways. - the second nuclear exit was a political play for voter sentiment by conservatives after Fukushima - they didn't even try to explain why nuclear should be kept for all the reasons they reversed the previous exit and still killed of the nascent booming solar/wind industry - they certainly were not renewables activists. Just recently the reverse happened as part of conservatives pre-election promises to rebuild nuclear as a play for voter sentiment due to temporarily high (war-dependent, already normalized) energy prices. It wasn't important enough for them to include in the government coalition plans in any way whatsoever - the main conservative agitator for nuclear has now had to agree that nuclear is economically dead. The reality is that nuclear in Germany was already dead when the first exit was voted on - nobody had built plants in a long time, nobody had any plans to build them. If not for the exit plans to start a renewables transition, fossil usage would be far higher today and because of the exit reversal and delay in coal exit due to the conservatives it is much higher today than it needed to be and we're much more dependent on Chinese manufacturers, too. At most activists were somewhat involved in voter sentiment at some points, but it wasn't particularly crucial versus the actual economic and political realities.

spookie 1y ago

Green Parties are such a farce for the most part. They serve other purposes, not aligned with what you really want or defend ;)

mmooss 1y ago
Right-wing parties and the center-left have been highly effective allies in getting people to demonize and ridicule the progressive left. The reason is, I think, that the progressives have rationally better policies - ones that become mainstream decades later, including much of what is mainstream now - so by demonizing the progressives the center and right prevent people from actually considering the policies.
- Duwensatzaj 1y ago
  Coercive eugenics used to be a progressive platform. More recently progressive prosecutors have been tried and the results are pretty clear they lead to increased crime. Consider perhaps the progressive policies have been considered and rejected for good reasons.
  - mmooss 1y ago
    > More recently progressive prosecutors have been tried and the results are pretty clear they lead to increased crime. Crime increases were across the country, regardless of the politics of the prosecutor. They are believed to be tied to the pandemic. In places where progressive DAs remain, crime has subsequently decreased to historic lows - just like the rest of the country.
    - Duwensatzaj 1y ago
      Wrong. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/VBQCPEMU5RZVASBS93WP?target=10.1111/1745-9133.12666 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/VBQCPEMU5RZVASBS93WP?t...
      - mmooss 1y ago