TruthNotBS
Gold Member
- Mar 20, 2023
- 3,425
- 1,272
- 208
You conceded that the fossil fuel industry invests in poisoning people's minds about nuclear energy,
Link?
Thanks for your ten non-carbon emitting fuels.
#1 is explosive.
#2 is incredibly hazardous.
#3-7 and #9 and 10 are not non-carbon emitting.
#8 sounds too complex and inefficient for cars.
Our cars aren't clean, they're relying on fossil fuels.
Our cars are incredibly clean. Fossil fuels, when they are burned cleanly, release mostly CO2 and H2O. Clean. CO2 isn't dirty.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encouraged banks to meet the credit needs of all communities, including low- and moderate-income areas, but it did not force banks to write bad loans
Right. It "encouraged" banks to write lower quality mortgages.
As for spending millions on lobbying, banks clearly saw the repeal as a ticket to enormous profits through increased financial speculation,
Which banks? How much did they spend?
Fossil fuel companies have been lobbying against Nuclear and supporting only select environmental groups against nuclear since the 50s:
"The fossil fuel industry starting from the 1950s was engaging in campaigns against the nuclear industry which it perceived as a threat to their commercial interests.[33][34] Organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association and Marcellus Shale Coalition were engaged in anti-nuclear lobbying in the late 2010s[35] and from 2019, large fossil fuel suppliers started advertising campaigns portraying fossil gas as a "perfect partner for renewables" (wording from Shell and Statoil advertisements).[36][37] Fossil fuel companies such as Atlantic Richfield were also donors to environmental organizations with clear anti-nuclear stances, such as Friends of the Earth.[36][38] Groups like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council are receiving grants from other fossil fuel companies.[39][36][40] As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power".[41] However, Greenpeace has since distanced itself from" advocating for fossil gas, instead proposing grid energy storage as a solution to issues caused by intermittent renewable energy. In Germany the Energiewende, which was advertised as a shift to renewable energy but included a gradual phaseout of nuclear power from 2000 to end 2022, caused among other things a rise in fossil gas power production from 49.2 TWh in 2000 to 94.7 TWh in 2020.[42] In the same interval total electricity generation barely changed (576.6 TWh in 2000 vs 574.2 TWh in 2020) while it did rise and fall in the meantime, reaching a peak of 652.9 TWh in 2017. As much of that fossil gas was and is imported from Russia, controversial pipeline projects like Nord Stream 1 were built to satisfy increasing German gas demand. After the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine it came to light that significant amounts of Russian lobbying was involved in both the continued anti-nuclear movement in Germany and the anti-fracking movement.[43][44][45]
Anti-nuclear movement - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
![en.m.wikipedia.org](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/ANTIAKW.jpg/1200px-ANTIAKW.jpg)
Anti-nuclear movement - Wikipedia
The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently urged lawmakers in Ohio to "reject legislation that would subsidize nuclear power companies", launching an anti-nuclear campaign that marks a return to above board competition in energy markets, writes Rod Adams:
Gloves are off in fossil fuel fight against nuclear - World Nuclear News
The American Petroleum Institute (API) recently urged lawmakers in Ohio to "reject legislation that would subsidize nuclear power companies", launching an anti-nuclear campaign that marks a return to above board competition in energy markets, writes Rod Adams.
The American Petroleum Institute, the nation's biggest and most influential lobbying group for the oil and natural gas industry, is fighting nuclear power subsidies across the U.S., poised to oppose any efforts to expand renewable electricity, and telling the Trump administration that its study on the power grid better not hurt natural gas in an effort to help coal and nuclear energy.
Are Fossil Fuel Interests Bankrolling The Anti-Nuclear Energy Movement? (forbes.com)- How important has oil money been to antinuclear movement? – Atomic Insights
- The War on Nuclear — Environmental Progress
- Sierra Club — Environmental Progress
- Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) — Environmental Progress
- NRDC — Environmental Progress
- Bridging the gap: Do fast-reacting fossil technologies facilitate renewable energy diffusion? – ScienceDirect
- https://www.nirs.org/wp-content/uploads/alternatives/battleofthegrids.pdf
- The Oil Industry Is Quietly Winning Local Climate Fights
- http://climatecoalition.org/wp-cont...trys-Plan-t-o-Sink-Nuclear-Power-04-11-19.pdf
- http://climatecoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/API-Presentation.pdf
- #15 – AEC authorizing legislation, fiscal year 1965 … pt.2. – Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library
- #222 – Cooperative Power Reactor Demonstration Program, 1963 : hearings … – Full View | HathiTrust Digital Library
-
The Fossil fuel industry's war on nuclear energy - Foreningen Atomkraft Ja Tak
Introduction The true cost of not building and keeping nuclear energy is more fossil fuels, and of course, the industry knows that which is why they have done everything possible to keep nuclear power down for as long as nuclear energy has existed. Already back in 1930, the energy suppliers were...rpmanetworks.com
As far as your gripe about what I said about carbon-free liquid fuels:
- Hydrogen (#1): Yes, hydrogen is explosive, but it’s already used safely in various industries with proper precautions. Plus, it burns cleanly, producing only water vapor.
- Ammonia (#2): Ammonia is hazardous, but it’s already widely used as a fertilizer. With proper handling, it can be a clean fuel alternative, producing nitrogen and water when burned.
- Synthetic Fuels (e.g., Methanol, Synthetic Diesel, Synthetic Gasoline, Butanol): These can be carbon-neutral when produced using captured CO2 and nuclear-generated hydrogen. The key here is that they don’t add new CO2 to the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuels.
- Liquid Hydrogen Carriers (#8): While they are complex, advancements in technology can make them efficient for certain applications, especially where hydrogen storage and transport are concerns.
Claiming that fossil fuels burned "cleanly" release only CO2 and H2O is misleading. While it's true that CO2 and water vapor are the primary byproducts, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that significantly contributes to global warming. The notion that CO2 is "clean" ignores its environmental impact. Moreover, burning fossil fuels also releases pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter, which contribute to smog, acid rain, and respiratory issues. Fossil fuels are far from being "clean" compared to zero-emission alternatives.
The government’s encouragement through the CRA was about expanding access to credit responsibly, not about forcing banks to make bad loans. The crisis wasn't caused solely by "lower quality mortgages" but by how banks bundled these loans into complex financial products, misrepresented their risks, and sold them off globally. The real issue was the reckless behavior enabled by deregulation and the banks' pursuit of profit at the expense of financial stability.
Several major banks, including Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, and Bank of America, were key players in lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. In 1999 alone, the financial industry spent over $300 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to push for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Citigroup, for example, was a significant advocate for the repeal, as it directly benefited from the ability to merge commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance services under one roof, which had been prohibited by Glass-Steagall.