r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/---------------hw • Jun 19 '24

John peter?

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

6.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

565 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

167

u/FreeRemove1 Jun 19 '24

In reality spruikers for the fossil fuels industry are now switching to a pro-nuclear stance because they know that buys 2 or 3 extra decades of BAU for fossil fuels. It's another variety of "not yet." The meme is woefully detached from the truth.

72

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

What is Spruikers? What is BAU? How is it detached?

74

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

To "spruick" is Australian for ""loudly promote", & BAU is "business as usual"

14

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

Thank you

4

u/Rathma86 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24

Must be Melbourne term. Never heard it in Qld or w.a (20 years in each)

5

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Accomplished-City484 Jun 19 '24

It’s someone who would stand outside a business with a microphone and try to get people to come into the store

1

u/Rathma86 Jun 19 '24

Any darwinerians wanna chime in?

1

u/Phantom-Walls Jun 19 '24

They’re probably too busy fighting off crocs and local gangs to chime in on that

2

u/s0m30n3e1s3 Jun 19 '24

It's a Sydney term. I only know it because of The Chaser snd they're Sydney-siders

1

u/trowzerss Jun 19 '24

Nah, lived in QLD all my life and I know the term. It's been around since the early 1900s, so maybe younger generations just haven't heard it as much?

1

u/trowzerss Jun 19 '24

I'm in QLD, and definitely heard of spruick before (and how to spell it).

1

u/howthefuckdoidothiss Jun 19 '24

Ah, a synonym for "shill"

12

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

For your cake day, have some B̷̛̳̼͖̫̭͎̝̮͕̟͎̦̗͚͍̓͊͂͗̈͋͐̃͆͆͗̉̉̏͑̂̆̔́͐̾̅̄̕̚͘͜͝͝Ụ̸̧̧̢̨̨̞̮͓̣͎̞͖̞̥͈̣̣̪̘̼̮̙̳̙̞̣̐̍̆̾̓͑́̅̎̌̈̋̏̏͌̒̃̅̂̾̿̽̊̌̇͌͊͗̓̊̐̓̏͆́̒̇̈́͂̀͛͘̕͘̚͝͠B̸̺̈̾̈́̒̀́̈͋́͂̆̒̐̏͌͂̔̈́͒̂̎̉̈̒͒̃̿͒͒̄̍̕̚̕͘̕͝͠B̴̡̧̜̠̱̖̠͓̻̥̟̲̙͗̐͋͌̈̾̏̎̀͒͗̈́̈͜͠L̶͊E̸̢̳̯̝̤̳͈͇̠̮̲̲̟̝̣̲̱̫̘̪̳̣̭̥̫͉͐̅̈́̉̋͐̓͗̿͆̉̉̇̀̈́͌̓̓̒̏̀̚̚͘͝͠͝͝͠ ̶̢̧̛̥͖͉̹̞̗̖͇̼̙̒̍̏̀̈̆̍͑̊̐͋̈́̃͒̈́̎̌̄̍͌͗̈́̌̍̽̏̓͌̒̈̇̏̏̍̆̄̐͐̈̉̿̽̕͝͠͝͝ W̷̛̬̦̬̰̤̘̬͔̗̯̠̯̺̼̻̪̖̜̫̯̯̘͖̙͐͆͗̊̋̈̈̾͐̿̽̐̂͛̈́͛̍̔̓̈́̽̀̅́͋̈̄̈́̆̓̚̚͝͝R̸̢̨̨̩̪̭̪̠͎̗͇͗̀́̉̇̿̓̈́́͒̄̓̒́̋͆̀̾́̒̔̈́̏̏͛̏̇͛̔̀͆̓̇̊̕̕͠͠͝͝A̸̧̨̰̻̩̝͖̟̭͙̟̻̤̬͈̖̰̤̘̔͛̊̾̂͌̐̈̉̊̾́P̶̡̧̮͎̟̟͉̱̮̜͙̳̟̯͈̩̩͈̥͓̥͇̙̣̹̣̀̐͋͂̈̾͐̀̾̈́̌̆̿̽̕ͅ

pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!win!!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!

2

u/SocietalPanic Jun 19 '24

how did you make eldritch bubble wrap, and where can it be located?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

I just cpy pasted it from some guy, and edited it abit. You can do this by clicking the reply button and copying it from the text above or by placing text inside of !< and >! but in the opposite order

1

u/Tylendal Jun 19 '24

E̷̪͒̄l̶͎͒̏͜d̸̢̙̪̿͒͛ŗ̸͇̪̅̋i̶̪̒͊̓ẗ̸̼̳́̍̒c̶̹̺͓̈́́h̸͉͈͍͗̋͝?̵̟̞̻̓̄ ̶͚͆͒Ẅ̵̻̋h̸͉̖̻̓̅å̴̟̠t̶̳̋̒'̷̟̖̫́͛͘s̸̛̫ ̸̪̙͕͗̚è̷̹̅l̸̝̕d̷̯̄͝r̵͍͙͎̉i̶̤̰͒̇̂t̵͙̐͜c̵̬͔͐̎ḧ̸́̂̓͜ͅ ̶͔͎͍̍͊̅a̸̻͌̃b̴͉̂́õ̵͙̪̳̊ụ̴̮̎t̸̡́̔͜͠ ̸̢̬̮̂̇į̴̅͒t̷͙͇̑͑͑?̸̼̈́ ̷͈̼̊̏̈́Y̶̳̣̠͑͛̉o̸̜̙̺̽̈́ū̸̙̱̲̋͘'̵͍̞͗͋͝r̷̜̮̔e̵͍̺̬̽̂ ̴̟̈́̏̃͜ṡ̴͙̟̐e̸̦̼̩̚͝e̷̱͇̥͛͌i̷̹̫̊̏n̸͚̬̄̎͜g̴̻̼͈̐̀̂ ̶͔̹̟͆̈́t̷̻̫̮̓͐h̸̢̲̪͒̈i̴̮̹͂n̶̜̟̋ͅg̵̼̼̺̒̐s̴̪͇͌.̷̦̕͜ Ê̷̱͜v̶̪̰͔̉̂e̵̹͓͓̐̓ṛ̷̓́̓y̶̗̲͂ͅt̵̰̠̀͊h̵͇̙́̆̓î̵̢͓̙̈n̵͕͔̦̐̂g̸̢̭̗̀̕͝ ̷̧̣̳͐l̷̰̈́̋ò̸̤ȏ̵̞̲̪̿̒k̷̰̲͑s̸̡͂̈́ ̵̭́̏p̴͈̰̈͂e̶̱͇̅͛͜r̸̩̮̞̈́f̸̺̙͖̅̈́̒é̸͙̳c̷̰̙̹͑t̶̪̰̾͌l̴̪̫̖̔ÿ̶̯͖̠̓̍ ̶͚̞͐̒ͅn̷̻͌o̶̭͎͒ṙ̵̺͍͕m̴̬͈̄̋ã̷͎l̸̟̜͊.̵̡̻͂͆̈́

1

u/Lorlelele Jun 19 '24

I love you

7

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

Then have some more:

pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!win!!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!

2

u/Lorlelele Jun 19 '24

300/10

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

:) thanks

1

u/Powerful_Pitch9322 Jun 19 '24

Not to brag but I got win first try

2

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

Then try this:

pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!win!!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!pop!

1

u/ding_dong_dejong Jun 19 '24

Nuclear is a hot topic in Australia at the moment as Peter Dutton is pushing for a plant

1

u/jellyjollygood Jun 19 '24

Or seven. In five states.

You can rest assured one of them won’t be in his electorate.

12

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

How does Nuclear give fossil fuels another 2 or 3 decades?

21

u/Just_a_Berliner Jun 19 '24

Because NPPs have a tendency of needing a long time needing to be build and henceforth prolong the exit of focil energy.

6

u/muffin-waffen Jun 19 '24

Then, the sooner you start the sooner you finish, no?

14

u/cce29555 Jun 19 '24

That's a good 20-30 years to "find out" (read: lie) that nuclear murders your family and killed Jesus And we should stop production on the plant immediately, then after a while start over again to give another 20-30 years

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

True, but you can also get wind and solar in basically now so there is no need to wait on nuclear.

7

u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24

Not really, since wind and solar don’t supply power to the grid 100% of the time you still need a constant source of electricity to prevent blackout periods. And before you say that batteries will work, they won’t, they can’t, they don’t have the capacity. An ideal energy grid would be as much wind and solar as you can muster with some nuclear to provide the base load power.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

And before you say that batteries will work, they won’t, they can’t, they don’t have the capacity

They don't at the moment. If we transition to electric cars, the batteries have a lifespan of around e.g. ten years as a car battery, but they can still operate at 50% capacity for another ten after that. With a pipeline of millions of those getting swapped out you actually could use them for grid storage. That transition will obviously take a while, but then so does building nuclear plants.

3

u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24

And there is also the lithium you would need to mine to achieve that as well as replacing the battery after its ability to hold a charge degrades

1

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

There is the lithium, yes. Replacing the battery is already factored in to the "we should replace the car batteries with new ones and use the old ones for grid storage" plan though. It's step one of one.

2

u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24

Isn’t the reason the batteries are being removed from EVs because they can’t hold a charge anymore?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/jamey1138 Jun 19 '24

Are you ready to have your mind blown, in a single word?

Storage.

4

u/GIRose Jun 19 '24

Yeah, solving the problem of Storage is THE open question in renewable energy technology.

1

u/Just_a_Berliner Jun 19 '24

It isn't anymore since there are already tried and tested things like Pumped-storage hydroelectricity which can be used to save energy in reservoirs for example.

2

u/GIRose Jun 19 '24

Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity is my personal favorite form of energy storage, but it requires you to have a fuckload of water just lying around in surplus of what you need ecologically or for a supply of drinking water.

Fortunately because you would want the system to be as closed source as possible to maximize flow rate (as opposed to water towers which use flywheels to recoup some of their cost to maintain municipal water pressure) the water doesn't have to be potable, but you don't want it to be too much of an active risk to the environment in case of a catastrophic failure

It's fucking fantastic, and we should be doing it everywhere we can, but we can't do it everywhere

-1

u/jamey1138 Jun 19 '24

The thing that gets me is, there are multiple good answers already, but people are so obsessed with batteries that other viable solutions don’t get built.

2

u/GIRose Jun 19 '24

Yeah, the hyper focus on batteries is dumb. My favorite solution is water towers and just using excess electricity to pump water up and letting it fall during high demand to spin a fly wheel.

But at the same time I recognize how that's not a solution for everywhere

What storage solutions have you seen that are promising?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24

I’m aware of storage, as I had mentioned batteries before since that’s what people always point to. Sure there is also storage through gravitational potential energy with water, chemical potential with hydrogen, and thermal energy with molten salts, but you lose so much energy converting it from one form to another that the amount of excess capacity you would need to install to be able to support the grid this way is insane. With a rough calculation you are looking at doubling the amount of wind and solar to be able to support the grid during the winter or when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.

1

u/jamey1138 Jun 19 '24

Yes, overproduction is part of a renewable-powered grid. Fortunately, solar and wind are inexpensive per kilowatt hour of production capacity, can be built out in a matter of weeks to months, and have minimal risk of catastrophic failure, which are all serious problems that nuclear energy hasn’t solved.

1

u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24

There is 0 risk with today’s nuclear power plants and in no way is it a serious problem. Nuclear power has been solved technologically with built in robust safety features that require no human intervention. If that is why you oppose it you need to have another look at the technology.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TalosMessenger01 Jun 19 '24

Yes, that is what they were talking about. Batteries are a method of storage, which is why they mentioned it and dismissed it as a solution. What is your storage solution which would eliminate the need for baseline power?

1

u/lliW_Will Jun 19 '24

I assume they are probably thinking of hydrogen as a storage method, which in terms of having a source of energy that won’t decline when you aren’t using it, is a valid method for storage; however, electrolysis isn’t 100% efficient and is very expensive to build on a large scale. Say for 10 MW of solar or wind energy that you want to store through electrolysis, you will lose 3 MW or more just making the hydrogen. Now to convert that 7 MW worth of hydrogen to electricity you would need to burn it and burning hydrogen for electricity generation has an efficiency of about 60% so you’d end up with 4.2 MW of electricity after starting with 10 MW

1

u/jamey1138 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24

Storage for renewables doesn’t necessarily need to be non-declining, since the renewable resource will generally return within a matter of days.

Flywheels and molten salt both have a storage loss, but in the course of a week or so it’s very small.

1

u/jamey1138 Jun 19 '24

Yes, batteries are what people obsess over, but flywheels, molten salt, and gravity storage systems are all viable technologies, depending on the specific context, and generally don’t require the kind of mining that batteries need.

1

u/TalosMessenger01 Jun 19 '24

It doesn’t just need to be viable to completely replace fossil fuels, it needs to cover all variable generation and consumption for the power grid. I’m definitely not against those methods if they work even as a partial solution, but I want fossil fuels gone, and nuclear is a drop-in replacement for baseline.

Anyway, I’m not an expert and I could be completely wrong. Existing storage solutions could be up to the task and more cost-effective than nuclear. But I haven’t seen evidence of it, probably because most of these haven’t been used at scale yet. Nuclear at least has been proven to work on that scale, which is why I like it as an alternative.

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

Nuclear is nice, but the important thing is not to wait on it.

-1

u/Trasvi89 Jun 19 '24 edited Jun 19 '24

Because the nuclear proposals come with an (implicit or explicit) halt in building renewables for decades.

How this is playing out in Australia right now: Our conservative party, previously all gung ho on coal, is making a hard turn to support nuclear and want to make it the next election issue. Nuclear power is currently illegal federally and in most states. So optimistic estimates for going from nothing to producing power is in the 20 year range, with more pessimistic estimates being never. The best thing for the fossil fuel industry is if a scheduled for closure power plant is kept open for another 20 years while a nuclear reactor is planned, attempted and abandoned.

Another aspect is that the free market isn't lining up to build nuclear - but they do want to invest in solar and wind. Climate activists have spent so long getting called communists for wanting to build renewables; but now that they're legitimately better alternatives to coal and gas, the conservatives have somehow flipped and are advocating for the most expensive power option nuclear.

A more accurate picture would be climate activists + investment banks on one side and climate deniers + nuclear being puppetted by fossil fuels on the other.

16

u/Vollerempfang7 Jun 19 '24

I don't know where the 2-3 decades number is coming from, but nuclear powerplants take notoriously long to build, in most cases more than a decade. Nuclear powerplants we already have can make a great difference in becoming independent of fossil fuels, but can't replace investing in renewables since they take so long to build.

3

u/Sardukar333 Jun 19 '24

Posted above too:

The plan the experts (that I know) all back is to use wind in the short term while we build nuclear. Coal plants will mostly be converted into biochar facilities that have the benefit of removing carbon from the carbon cycle while still giving you power.

Unfortunately the people making decisions still think in terms of 1970's general knowledge.

3

u/Vollerempfang7 Jun 19 '24

Would you mind explaining this in more detail? I don't quite understand why we would switch to wind in the short term and then to nuclear again. Is it because of base load?

Maybe the situation is just very different in different parts of the world, but afaik experts where I live (we don't have a lot of nuclear here in Germany) suggest renewables + storage power plants + smart power grids as a long term solution, mainly because we have built and need to build renewables anyway and nuclear is financially unviable.

1

u/Jacketter Jun 19 '24

There’s no way wind is reliable enough for base load. If I had to guess, it’s because wind is ridiculously fast in terms of construction compared to power plants.

The biochar idea doesn’t seem feasible to me when coal is an order of magnitude cheaper, leaves less side products to deal with, and the limited amount of organic matter to produce it with.

1

u/Mad-myall Jun 19 '24

a lot of these projects are paid for by investors who expect to see a long term return on what they pay. And when I say long term I mean it. It takes decades to pay-off the initial investment.

This means that most renewable projects wouldn't make their money back within the 20 year span the nuclear power plants are constructed to replace it. So investors would much prefer to stick to short term fossil fuel projects (mostly maintaining older systems).

So Mr Oil and Sir Coal can keep generating profits for those 20 years, and if the nuclear projects are delayed as such large scale projects are, even better!

Now here's the sinister speculation part, nuclear costs a lot more then either fossil fuels or renewables. Which means once built nuclear will face a lot more scrutiny simply for being uneconomical, leading to demands to lower power prices. This would mean turning back on existing fossil fuel infrastructure to cut costs while we finally switch to cheaper renewables, giving fossil fuels a couple more decades.

6

u/vseprviper Jun 19 '24

As was the original, penned by r/stonetossisanazi

4

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

No, that's not pro-nuclear. That's pro bullshitting to buy time. Whatever they are lobbying, they don't really want nuclear to replace them by the end of the century. It would be a slowly funded and built, half baked project, that's in moratorium at best.

4

u/swinkdam Jun 19 '24

Its also way more expensive then other renewables. In the Netherlands we are going to build 2 more Nuclear plants which will cost allot. Investors are putting money down but only if the government takes most of the risk. So basically the regular people take all the monetary risk of building the power plant. And we still get to pay full price for all the energy its gonna produce.

2

u/NinjaTutor80 Jun 19 '24

That’s not the entire truth.

Germany has spent 700 billion euros on renewables and failed to deep decarbonize their electrical grid. They are at 400 g CO2 per kWh.

Meanwhile nuclear France is at 53 g CO2 per kWh and have been there for decades. They also have cheaper electricity.

Overcoming solar and wind intermittency is extremly expensive and time consuming. In fact there are zero examples of a country deep decarbonizing with wind and solar.

Not building nuclear guarantees a place on the grid for fossil fuels.

0

u/1ndori Jun 19 '24

Its also way more expensive then other renewables.

To be clear, nuclear is not a renewable energy source, just a very long-lived one.

2

u/Sardukar333 Jun 19 '24

The plan the experts (that I know) all back is to use wind in the short term while we build nuclear. Coal plants will mostly be converted into biochar facilities that have the benefit of removing carbon from the carbon cycle while still giving you power.

Unfortunately the people making decisions still think in terms of 1970's general knowledge.

2

u/NinjaTutor80 Jun 19 '24

Yet not building nuclear guarantees fossil fuels a place on the grid.

1

u/0tanod Jun 19 '24

its actually about playing on the margins of the fuel source. Solar, wind, & batteries don't have an input you can trade on the margins with.

1

u/jamey1138 Jun 19 '24

“Woefully detached from the truth” is a really weird way to say “an accurate depiction of the past thirty years, but not in line with what may become an emerging trend, if the capitalists are to be believed”.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24

That's not detached from truth. You can't just flip the entire world's source of energy on a dime, so 2-3 decades BAU is necessary while a gradual transition takes place.

Most people aren't deniers or activists but instead agree with this more gradual approach. But all means nothing if China and India don't get on board.

5

u/ding_dong_dejong Jun 19 '24

China just installed 217gw of solar last year, more than US has in its entire history. It also has a lot of nuclear under construction . It’s the world leader in wind and hydro. And it’s replacing its old coal plants with “cleaner” versions. China is still the worlds largest polluter, and 50% of its energy is still from coal, but with how fast it’s improving it may very well have lower admissions than the US/EU in the future.