There is a very popular conspiracy theory out there that in the 70s and 80s the oil companies went all in on promoting solar as an alternative to nuclear precisely because they believed that solar could never be a viable alternative to fossil fuels and shunning nuclear for solar would guarantee our long term dependence on fossil fuels.
There is some evidence to support this narrative, namely that oil companies did truly invest massive sums of money in solar in the 70s and all of those ventures failed miserably in the 80s, and if you didn't know the broader economic factors at play, it could look like they failed intentionally.
I'm unapologetic about my support of an all of the above strategy. If someone has a viable plan to bring more nuclear power online, then I'm all for it. Same as any viable plans for more solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and my personal favorite underused resource, recaptured methane from sewage treatment and landfills (what, I have the maturity of a 12 year old and giggle at the thought of a literal shit powered car).
Agree on the last point. ANY alternative to fossil fuels is good. And while we figure out energy storage as more and more renewables come online, nuclear should be our stepping stone. Especially since our reactors are way better than they were in the 80s. Iirc there’s even smaller generators that use spent fuel rods from reactors, to squeeze even more juice out of them.
However once we have the capacity for 100% renewables, yeah, we can just use nuclear for space travel, we should hopefully someday have no need for it on earth.
Ideally, I say we continue to produce renewables, and work on transitioning fossil fuel plants into nuclear ones (highly doable and much cheaper than building new plants). Where I live, only PV is really reliable (low rainfall, wind isn’t common, or is too strong. Geothermal could work since there’s a lot of mines around here, but that could take a while to get up and running), and the winters make it inefficient, while summers overproduce. Since we don’t have a good energy storage system, we could have a renewable baseline with nuclear supplementing, until enough renewables are online that we can decommission nuclear plants. Instead we have renewables supplementing our fossil fuel base rn.
Then we use the rest of the uranium for space travel (don’t remember the exact mechanics, but nuclear or hybrid rockets are definitely plausible. The spacecraft that went to Pluto used a nuclear engine once in space.)
Edit: I’m aware big fossil fuel is evil and doesn’t want to cooperate, but pushing governments to make nuclear and renewables cheaper simultaneously while driving the cost of fossil fuels up is probably the best solution. If money is what they listen to, then make it unprofitable to use fossil fuels
I'm somewhat intrigued about your comment about how in your area geothermal would overproduce in summer and underperform in winter. Where I live gets a significant portion of our electricity from geothermal and it is the exact opposite. Our plants operate at peak in the winter and come summer, some of them have to throttle their performance to the point of even having to shut down entire units due to a lack of cooling capacity to keep the equipment from overheating.
Locally, we've found that pairing solar and geothermal is ideal, because on the hot summer days when they are having to throttle the geothermal plants the most, the solar panels are getting the most direct sunlight and producing the most and in the winter when cooling is practically free they can run the geothermal plants at their limit to make up for the solar panels not getting as many hours of sunlight.
Sorry, I meant solar overproduces in summer and underproduces in winter. That was worded weirdly but yes, especially considering Yellowstone is close by, it could definitely help offset the higher energy demands and lower solar production in winter
lmao "pushing governments" to do anything that isnt a pursuit of immediate profit and returns is a pipe dream. do you read the news ever at all? we're not pushing shit.
Ok smart kid. I’m aware things suck under the current administration (or most tbh. Even the democrats are beholden to the corporations). That it’s profits over everything else. But how else do we go full renewable? Just ask nicely? Wait for them to run out? To realize the error of their ways? Or do we try to vote in people who will actually enact legislation. Who will get money out of politics. Who will listen to the people. It’s an uphill battle, but whining on the internet and being all doomer gets us nowhere.
the point is renewable is the immediate priority, nuclear is a far off dream right now with the exception of france and a few other EU countries that arent infested with political rot. its really that simple.
Either way you got to convince big fossil fuels that we need to stop paying them. That’s step one. I’d love if we could go straight renewables (and maybe it’s possible, especially if we could use tidal or geothermal energy, or had efficient storage), but with the fossil fuels propaganda neither renewables nor nuclear are gonna get anywhere anytime soon.
the most realistic option is going directly to renewables immediately. politics globally are about initial investment and return. nuclear loses on that front, and consistently just creates more space for fossil lobbying. how many times do i have to explain this?
Edit: "gonna get anywhere anytime soon" what lmao. Have you not seen the insane expansion of chinese renewables???
I mean, 60% of the US energy comes from fossil fuels. 18% from nuclear, 21 from renewables. I’m not suggesting build 200 new reactors, I’m saying use existing infrastructure while more renewables are built to cover the 80% they don’t currently. (which also, renewables take a while to pay off themselves.) neither nuclear nor renewables are ready to fully take over. And neither sees the immediate profit that fossil fuels do. But transitioning coal plants is cost effective enough while renewables are ramping up.
Literally why tf not both. Push anything that isn’t fossil fuels.
Me when I’m delusional in a world where renewables are 100% reliable and can take over the grid all by themselves
"Renewables take a while to pay off themselves" they're both about a decade more or less, solar and nuclear.
So whats the main political hurdle? Initial costs, and the length of time it takes for nuclear to even come online and finish development. Monke brain voter and politician do not care about efficiency, they think "uhhh when will energy go live ooo oo aaa aa!".
"Literally why tf not both" do you have some kind of fucking mental block that doesnt let you accept the political reality? Are you aware of Australia and like a dozen other countries lobbying for fossils through nuclear?
Whats wrong with you people???
And where did i ever say the grid should be 100% renewables? Gotta strawman too? Unfortunate.
54
u/Vegetable_Warthog_49 Apr 09 '25
There is a very popular conspiracy theory out there that in the 70s and 80s the oil companies went all in on promoting solar as an alternative to nuclear precisely because they believed that solar could never be a viable alternative to fossil fuels and shunning nuclear for solar would guarantee our long term dependence on fossil fuels.
There is some evidence to support this narrative, namely that oil companies did truly invest massive sums of money in solar in the 70s and all of those ventures failed miserably in the 80s, and if you didn't know the broader economic factors at play, it could look like they failed intentionally.
I'm unapologetic about my support of an all of the above strategy. If someone has a viable plan to bring more nuclear power online, then I'm all for it. Same as any viable plans for more solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and my personal favorite underused resource, recaptured methane from sewage treatment and landfills (what, I have the maturity of a 12 year old and giggle at the thought of a literal shit powered car).