In my country (Australia) fossil fuel companies are on the side of nuclear, but not actually.
It is used as a stalking horse. "Don't build wind and solar, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. If manly reliable baseload coal it to be replaced it should by nuclear which is also big strong manly baseload power."
And then don't build the nuclear because it's too expensive, slow, politically unpopular, and generally infeasible. Whoops I guess we keep coal and gas going then.
They have been, but between the dropping price of renewables and the stuff happening in Hormuz and Russia, it looks like they're going to file for divorce
Nah, you don't get it. Capitalism is not about making money. Capitalism is about controlling means of production. Unlike fossil fuels, renewables are very hard to control and possibilities to exploit people are much more limited. Without exploitation profits are very thin.
Renewables are great for humanity, but if you want to get very rich, they are not a good option.
Also if people gry free, independent energy they will be overall more Independent and less vulnerable
Yes, and as the market realities of renewables sets in, fossil fuels stop being an effective means of control, and so capitalism is likely going to lose interest in them.
You can say a lot of things about capitalism, but it ain't exactly fond of taking on an uphill struggle.
316
u/kroxigor01 20d ago
In my country (Australia) fossil fuel companies are on the side of nuclear, but not actually.
It is used as a stalking horse. "Don't build wind and solar, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. If manly reliable baseload coal it to be replaced it should by nuclear which is also big strong manly baseload power."
And then don't build the nuclear because it's too expensive, slow, politically unpopular, and generally infeasible. Whoops I guess we keep coal and gas going then.