[Timon3]

> Nuclear proponents use the same claim against the renewable industry.

But the claim doesn't make sense against the renewable industry. Just because they make the same claim doesn't make it a good claim.

I, as an individual, can deploy solar power and thus produce my own power. I cannot deploy nuclear power and thus produce my own power.

[pyrale]

> But the claim doesn't make sense against the renewable industry.

Well, my point is that you just have to see what some major fossil energy producers say and do. You don't need to believe anyone on this.

[1]: https://www.shell.com/energy-and-innovation/new-energies.htm... [2]: https://www.chevron.com/operations/new-energies [3]: https://totalenergies.com/group/ambition/being-world-class-p... [4]: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/what-we-do/gas-and-lo...

[piva00]

I don't follow your argumentation.

The fossil fuel industry could as well (tin foil hat on) be pushing the nuclear talking points to delay public opinion on the benefits of renewables until they are well aligned to take over the renewable industry. They are fighting to still be relevant as profit-making companies in a world where renewables take over, they are invested in renewables because they know the writing on the wall but they are late on their plans to be major players in the renewables industry and would definitely play public opinion to delay advancements in an area where they lack expertise, at least until they can build said expertise and take over the renewables market to keep being energy behemoths.

[pyrale]

> The fossil fuel industry could as well be pushing the nuclear talking points to delay public opinion on the benefits of renewables

> They are fighting to still be relevant as profit-making companies in a world where renewables take over

So basically, if the fossil industry promotes nuclear, it's to sabotage the only viable option in order to sell more oil, but if they promote renewable, it's because they know it's the only path forward and they want to save their skin. Your theory is not falsifiable, that's a problem.

[Timon3]

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?

[pyrale]

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.

[piva00]

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.

[fomine3]

AFAIK, ocean oil well platform developer is good at building something at sea, so they migrate their business to building ocean wind turbines.