Do Fossil Fuel industries really lobby against Nukes?

Is this true? Tell me what you know. It could come in very handy in a debate I'm having with a global warming naysayer.

Is that an echo? or what?

Perhaps my question isn't clear. "renewables and conservation" may well be THE answer, but it is not the answer to my question.

I think it was a reasonable answer to your original question.

but no, even though my question was phrased badly, it could not be mistaken for a question that could be answered properly with the words "Renewables and Conservation".

Two reasonable people gave the same answer, I'd have to guess that they were reasonable answers to the original question.

Even ignoring punctuation, the first independent clause "Two reasonable people gave the same answer," is to my mind debatable.

People often answer "renewables and conservation," and clearly have no idea what they are talking about. In fact most people who think that every question can be answered like this are clearly unreasonable. Generally they suffer from myopia, wishful thinking, and the inability to perceive reality.

Here is a question that I frequently ask, and to which I frequently get the completely absurd answer, "renewables and conservation":



I like "renewables and conservation" as much as the next guy, but when that phrase is applied in answer to my question, which I promise not to edit, I am quite sure that the person offering that reply is having a dangerous, even fatal, hallucination. I certainly don't associate having hallucinations with reasonable people.

sorry if it was confusing.

The huge corporations that are the U.S. government's true constituency tend to be very shortsighted. At the moment coal and oil are far more profitable than nuclear power would be, so that's all they care about.

Once it becomes clear that nuclear power is necessary to maintain an economy such as ours, there will be a crackdown on anti-nuclear activism.

Sadly, democracy doesn't have anything to do with it.

Personally, I think a lot of people are going to die as a result of this "Just In Time" (JIT) economic strategy.

implied that Fossil Fuel lobbies actively worked against Nukes (or at least that's what I got out of it).

It makes a certain sense, IF fossil fuel companies don't have the know how to profit from Nukes. And they (FF's) certainly want to suck every penny of profit out of fossil fuels w/o being told how (or when) to spend their ill-gotten gain.

OTOH, the Fossil Fuels have more money than God, so if anyone could jump in and profit from Nukes, you'd think they could.

Hence the reason for my confusion.

I'd like to read what was said.

I'm thinking on re-reading that the original poster meant that the anti-nukes inadvertently lobbied for the Fossil Fuels, rather than that they actually conspired together.

quote:

"It's my own opinion that it would have been much safer and much less expensive to leave the plant in place, within the security perimeter of the operating plants. But there was money to be made. Basically, the anti-nuclear activists were put to profitable use by the contractors doing the work. Anti-nuclear activists claimed it would cost billions to dismantle a nuclear power plant, so, by golly, the opportunity was there to make billions. That's how big business works. Grab the consumer by the ankles, lift, and shake. Let the anti-nuclear activists convince the consumer it's for their own good. (As a side note, the anti-nuclear activists also lobby for the fossil fuel industry, once again, for free.)"

from this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x57616

by inclusion of the word "effectively." My understanding of what he meant is "the anti-nuclear activists also effectively lobby for the fossil fuel industry, once again, for free..." But again, he can speak for himself.

If he meant this, it is true.

The anti-nuclear position, which elevates the window dressing of renewable fuel to a position not justified by the realities of capacity, effectively promotes fossil fuels. It is, in fact, free lobbying for fossil fuels.

In the past, I have had discussions with anti-nuclear activists crowing about the German decision to phase out nuclear power, or at least have some impoverished future generation phase it out. The pretension, of course, is that the phase out would lead to the replacement of nukes by renewable projects. But the pretension is nonsense. I recently started a thread showing that the reality is 8 new huge carbon belching coal plants.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=57605&mesg_id=57605

in my last post. "accidentally" and "inadvertently" was all that would come to mind.

However, nuclear tends to get into bigger legal and public relations backlashes than coal, hence coal is more widely used.

Many years ago, many large energy companies, like Chevron, had active uranium businesses. They abandoned them, to my knowledge, when the price of uranium went south.

I could imagine some coal companies being unfriendly to nuclear power, but I don't really believe they are active in the matter.

The matter of global climate change is about to get somewhat bigger than lobbyists can control in any case.

Guess he couldn't wade in.

lol, I'm going straight to hell for that one.

But it was good to see him bring it up. He can shut a hell of alot of dis-information artist up just by giving his opinion, fortunately.B-)

I disagree that it would be irrelevant for arguments sake, but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems.

That sounds scary. I'll bet that would make geological nuclear fuel disposal sites leach in contrast to the 2 billion years of ordinary water rain associated with the natural reactors at Oklo. That would be tragic for any biota that might survive under these conditions, I'll bet.

And of course rains of sulfuric acid are generally safer than nuclear accidents, right?

I'm sure Hawkings is being hysterical though.