Sorry, I really don't follow. The claim by GP was:
> Nuclear is an ideal green solution for the fossil fuel industry. Why? Well, building a power station is super hard because: it's expensive, takes years and no one wants a power station in their backyard.
This is not the case for renewables. How does pointing to what fossil fuel companies are investing in change that? Shell investing in solar means that suddenly I can't cheaply install solar in my backyard?
My point is that the fossil industry is pushing renewables as a solution, as evidenced by these examples, never nuclear. That kind of defeats the claim that nuclear is fossil industry's recommendation.
This has no relation to what you should or should not build in your backyard.
They publicly push renewables as a solution because public opinion is aligned to that, it's PR for them to be saying that out loud publicly and showing projects around it. They might as well be subverting renewables at large (as another PR move) through support for dissenting voices pushing nuclear over renewables, as a way to delay adoption until they are well-positioned in that market.
> Nuclear is an ideal green solution for the fossil fuel industry. Why? Well, building a power station is super hard because: it's expensive, takes years and no one wants a power station in their backyard.
This is not the case for renewables. How does pointing to what fossil fuel companies are investing in change that? Shell investing in solar means that suddenly I can't cheaply install solar in my backyard?
reply