4 ms·

Nuclear was also kneecapped by FUD and astroturfing, and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil. D

Nuclear was also kneecapped by FUD and astroturfing, and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil. Did you know GM made a fully viable electric car that people loved back in the 90s? Setback after setback, all self-inflicted, people pretending we have these insurmountable hurdles all over the place. Pathetic for an empire that prides itself as a champion of industry. The fertilizer thing is a perfect example. We don't need to extract, refine, and burn nearly as much fuel as we do to get the fertilizer we need. People make the same empty argument about the cheap plastic shit that dominates the economy as if the world didn't exist before cheap plastic shit and couldn't exist after.

doublerabbit 2mo ago
To be fair, Chernobyl didn't exactly help the cause.
- DangitBobby 2mo ago
  Definitely true. But you see the blame placed on the public fearing nuclear from these events. There was some fear, but also astroturfing to make sure nuclear stayed dead.
  - defrost 2mo ago
    > a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so. To be fair to past humans the deliberate lies and misinformation didn't really start until the 1970s, the oil crisis of that decade, the coming together of the UN to recognise the issue following the geophysics papers of the 1960s that nailed the CO2 problem against oil consumption, etc. That's the period in which Koch money started flowing to think tanks and agencies that spun hard against smaller cars, public transport, integrated rail in cities, etc. The push for bigger cars as freedom. Arrhenius' 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect didn't exactly have enough bite to kick of anti-prop in 1926, the world had other pressing issues. Also worth noting that Three Mile Island was an earlier stain on public perception that kicked in a power station slow down well before Chernobyl.
    - DangitBobby 2mo ago
      You right. 50 years or so. I was trying going back far enough to include the discovery of man-made climate change and not necessarily starting right at the plugging our ears portion of the timeline. Regarding the nuclear FUD, I'm not backing down. We'll never know how much the fear of nuclear was grassroots and how much was turf, but we can know for sure that someone didn't want Americans to have energy independence.
      - defrost 2mo ago
        Fear of nuclear weapons was backed in as part of the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction stand off doctrine - rather hard to achieve when pushing the Atoms For Peace warm fuzzy alternative. Didn't help that nukes didn't make good civil engineering tools or help conquer space by farting out tiny bombs. Even Carl Sagan was pushing the nuclear should not be used primal back brain reaction by over hyping (?) nuclear winter for a disarmament argument.
dmix 2mo ago
> and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil. The world is a lot bigger than the US and they've all followed pretty much the same trajectory the last two decades. A slow long term investment in R&D/manufacturing techniques, followed by increased adoption when it became economically competitive. Combined with varying levels of government incentives and measured regulation, to ease transitions so it doesn't destroy the economy which we still depend on for everything else. These major shifts always happen slowly then start exponentially growing once it's demonstrated to be practical.
- DangitBobby 2mo ago
  I agree the US isn't the only country but I believe at that time we had the resources and clout to make green energy research happen everywhere and export our successes. We were still a global leader at the time both politically and technologically, especially where energy was concerned. And the world certainly took notice and set back the movement when the largest polluter per capita repeatedly signalled it had no interest in joining the rest of the world in a green future.
  - dmix 2mo ago
    > to make green energy research happen everywhere and export our successes China won there because they can build things, they are also built 60+ nuclear reactors over the past decade. That's the main difference between them and the west. It's not a lack of government grants for green R&D. They made renewable energy affordable for both themselves and others... by allowing industry to operate efficiently and affordably. Tesla couldn't build a Lithium Battery plant in California for their electric cars because made it impossible via environmental air regulations. But now the west is benefiting from Chinese production.
    - DangitBobby 2mo ago
      Really? California represents the entirety of the US's technology R&D capacity? Ironic that I'm supposed to read that as an indictment of California's governance...
parineum 2mo ago
> Did you know GM made a fully viable electric car that people loved back in the 90s? 105m range on nimh which rapidly degrades isn't a fully viable car and a maximum of 1000 people "loved" it considering that's all they made. GM is in business to make money. They didn't cancel a car that was a viable product.
- DangitBobby 2mo ago
  Uh huh and that's why people offered to buy their cars back and instead of selling them back GM destroyed them? Because they weren't viable?
ssl-3 2mo ago
EVs aren't new. Like, at all. To pick one example: Once Studebaker decided to branch into self-going car territory, they were selling electric cars[1] nearly a century before GM's EV-1 project started delivering vehicles. They were reasonably-reliable and they plugged into an outlet at home to recharge. Easy-peasy. But the range sucked: 40 miles is useful, but is just not very good for a lot of things that don't require any imagination to realize. They did a lot better selling gas-fired cars than they did plug-in electric models[2], and this happened without requiring political conspiracy. Anyway, it's 2026 and the range problem is solved well-enough for many folks. :) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Electric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Electric [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker#End_of_horse-drawn_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker#End_of_horse-drawn_...
- DangitBobby 2mo ago
  It sure is! I have an EV myself and it's way better than any ICE vehicle I've ever driven.

doublerabbit 2mo ago

To be fair, Chernobyl didn't exactly help the cause.

DangitBobby 2mo ago
Definitely true. But you see the blame placed on the public fearing nuclear from these events. There was some fear, but also astroturfing to make sure nuclear stayed dead.
- defrost 2mo ago
  > a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so. To be fair to past humans the deliberate lies and misinformation didn't really start until the 1970s, the oil crisis of that decade, the coming together of the UN to recognise the issue following the geophysics papers of the 1960s that nailed the CO2 problem against oil consumption, etc. That's the period in which Koch money started flowing to think tanks and agencies that spun hard against smaller cars, public transport, integrated rail in cities, etc. The push for bigger cars as freedom. Arrhenius' 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect didn't exactly have enough bite to kick of anti-prop in 1926, the world had other pressing issues. Also worth noting that Three Mile Island was an earlier stain on public perception that kicked in a power station slow down well before Chernobyl.
  - DangitBobby 2mo ago
    You right. 50 years or so. I was trying going back far enough to include the discovery of man-made climate change and not necessarily starting right at the plugging our ears portion of the timeline. Regarding the nuclear FUD, I'm not backing down. We'll never know how much the fear of nuclear was grassroots and how much was turf, but we can know for sure that someone didn't want Americans to have energy independence.
    - defrost 2mo ago
      Fear of nuclear weapons was backed in as part of the Cold War Mutually Assured Destruction stand off doctrine - rather hard to achieve when pushing the Atoms For Peace warm fuzzy alternative. Didn't help that nukes didn't make good civil engineering tools or help conquer space by farting out tiny bombs. Even Carl Sagan was pushing the nuclear should not be used primal back brain reaction by over hyping (?) nuclear winter for a disarmament argument.

dmix 2mo ago

> and we didn't properly fund renewables because Republican administrations were in the pockets of big oil. The world is a lot bigger than the US and they've all followed pretty much the same trajectory the last two decades. A slow long term investment in R&D/manufacturing techniques, followed by increased adoption when it became economically competitive. Combined with varying levels of government incentives and measured regulation, to ease transitions so it doesn't destroy the economy which we still depend on for everything else. These major shifts always happen slowly then start exponentially growing once it's demonstrated to be practical.

DangitBobby 2mo ago
I agree the US isn't the only country but I believe at that time we had the resources and clout to make green energy research happen everywhere and export our successes. We were still a global leader at the time both politically and technologically, especially where energy was concerned. And the world certainly took notice and set back the movement when the largest polluter per capita repeatedly signalled it had no interest in joining the rest of the world in a green future.
- dmix 2mo ago
  > to make green energy research happen everywhere and export our successes China won there because they can build things, they are also built 60+ nuclear reactors over the past decade. That's the main difference between them and the west. It's not a lack of government grants for green R&D. They made renewable energy affordable for both themselves and others... by allowing industry to operate efficiently and affordably. Tesla couldn't build a Lithium Battery plant in California for their electric cars because made it impossible via environmental air regulations. But now the west is benefiting from Chinese production.
  - DangitBobby 2mo ago
    Really? California represents the entirety of the US's technology R&D capacity? Ironic that I'm supposed to read that as an indictment of California's governance...

parineum 2mo ago

> Did you know GM made a fully viable electric car that people loved back in the 90s? 105m range on nimh which rapidly degrades isn't a fully viable car and a maximum of 1000 people "loved" it considering that's all they made. GM is in business to make money. They didn't cancel a car that was a viable product.

DangitBobby 2mo ago
Uh huh and that's why people offered to buy their cars back and instead of selling them back GM destroyed them? Because they weren't viable?

ssl-3 2mo ago

EVs aren't new. Like, at all. To pick one example: Once Studebaker decided to branch into self-going car territory, they were selling electric cars[1] nearly a century before GM's EV-1 project started delivering vehicles. They were reasonably-reliable and they plugged into an outlet at home to recharge. Easy-peasy. But the range sucked: 40 miles is useful, but is just not very good for a lot of things that don't require any imagination to realize. They did a lot better selling gas-fired cars than they did plug-in electric models[2], and this happened without requiring political conspiracy. Anyway, it's 2026 and the range problem is solved well-enough for many folks. :) [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Electric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Electric [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker#End_of_horse-drawn_era https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker#End_of_horse-drawn_...

DangitBobby 2mo ago
It sure is! I have an EV myself and it's way better than any ICE vehicle I've ever driven.