It is received wisdom in pro-nuclear circles that sinister fossil fuel interests are partly if not largely responsible for nuclear's abject failure to live up to its remarkable promise.
Fascinating overview. But I would be interested to know more about your quote below, which sits a bit awkwardly with your conclusion that there’s nothing to see here.
“The oil companies found themselves in the same position as the coal companies 50 years earlier, and responded in a similar manner, fighting nuclear subsidies and promoting wind/solar, knowing that their intermittency would lock in gas as the dispatchable source.”
US nuclear died in the early, mid-1970's. There were only a handful of orders after 1975 and none after 1978 in the 20th century. Given the promethean promise of nuclear, we need to know what caused this demise. Some say it was Big Oil. But Big Oil was making a big investment in nuclear during this period. Gotta be something else. What happened in the last 15 or so years is irrelevant to to the question on the table. You can regard this a spoiler alert or maybe a tease. Stay tuned.
Nuclear is and remains the only way oil companies will be able to continue their businesses with any social license into the future (whatever one may think of that fact aside). This is true more on the refining side where they could use nuclear to make synth fuels, but all of the chemical engineering skill sets to do that reside in the oil industry.
Energy companies are going to compete with each other and fighting over legislation is a back handed dirty business. It does not require some deep state conspiracy though, it is just industries protecting their interests as any industry does. The process of building the future is always a mess, but we will get to the promised land in the end because the physics of energy density are on our side.
I must have missed this detail when I first read this post, but I noticed you cited Exxon and Scallop’s investments in uranium mining as part of the proof that they were supporters, not opponents.
Are you aware of the role that the Uranium Cartel played in instigating a financial crisis at Westinghouse and a subsequent decade worth of lawsuits and counter suits between Circle W and its nuclear utility customers?
Thank you for your good articles, which I have enjoyed. Now you wrote that "Calabrese's long carefully researched history of this mess makes no mention of BigOil. Not even a hint." But he mentioned the connection of the Rockefeller Foundation and LNT. Let me list a few.
Calabrese EJ. LNTgate: How scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment. Environ Res. 2016 Jul;148:535-546. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.040. Epub 2016 Apr 28. PMID: 27131569.
Calabrese EJ. On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. Environ Res. 2015 Oct;142:432-42. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011. Epub 2015 Aug 4. PMID: 26248082.
Calabrese EJ. From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment. Environ Pollut. 2018 Oct;241:289-302. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.05.051. Epub 2018 May 22. PMID: 29843011.
Calabrese EJ. Precaution and Assumption and the Deceits of Corrupted Science.
Wasn't Big Oil interested in selling gas for electricity generation long before the turn of the millennium (in fact before the advent of nuclear energy even)? I'm sure I read that the money that allowed the Sierra Club to become such a large organization came from Californian oil interests who wanted to create a market for gas by thwarting the construction of hydroelectric dams.
You are correct 100% about ALARA and radiation limits. But these are just one method of regulating nuclear to make them economically unfeasible. When I say "fossil fuel", I meant coal and gas. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation. It will be the mainstay for that for decades simply because people will not give up the autonomy and freedom they feel from having gasoline cars. So, coal has yielded to gas as an electricity generating fuel. That is about it. You are correct that wind and solar are viable only because gas marketers know that each increment of solar and wind needs an equal amount of gas capacity. What a racket. However, the real story is that nuclear power lives. Despite the $6 trillion subsidy of wind and solar and the 10s of billions of subsidy for gas and coal annually, leaving nuclear power dwarfed for federal support. Despite this, nuclear power is finally taking its place as the fuel for producing electricity of choice. It just remains for the gas and coal companies to see their future in nuclear power and acting accordingly in their powerful lobbying efforts. As you said, oil does not have to worry. They will be king for many decades to come. Thanks, Jack.
Fascinating overview. But I would be interested to know more about your quote below, which sits a bit awkwardly with your conclusion that there’s nothing to see here.
“The oil companies found themselves in the same position as the coal companies 50 years earlier, and responded in a similar manner, fighting nuclear subsidies and promoting wind/solar, knowing that their intermittency would lock in gas as the dispatchable source.”
US nuclear died in the early, mid-1970's. There were only a handful of orders after 1975 and none after 1978 in the 20th century. Given the promethean promise of nuclear, we need to know what caused this demise. Some say it was Big Oil. But Big Oil was making a big investment in nuclear during this period. Gotta be something else. What happened in the last 15 or so years is irrelevant to to the question on the table. You can regard this a spoiler alert or maybe a tease. Stay tuned.
Nuclear is and remains the only way oil companies will be able to continue their businesses with any social license into the future (whatever one may think of that fact aside). This is true more on the refining side where they could use nuclear to make synth fuels, but all of the chemical engineering skill sets to do that reside in the oil industry.
Energy companies are going to compete with each other and fighting over legislation is a back handed dirty business. It does not require some deep state conspiracy though, it is just industries protecting their interests as any industry does. The process of building the future is always a mess, but we will get to the promised land in the end because the physics of energy density are on our side.
Jack
I must have missed this detail when I first read this post, but I noticed you cited Exxon and Scallop’s investments in uranium mining as part of the proof that they were supporters, not opponents.
Are you aware of the role that the Uranium Cartel played in instigating a financial crisis at Westinghouse and a subsequent decade worth of lawsuits and counter suits between Circle W and its nuclear utility customers?
https://www.nytimes.com/1978/07/09/archives/the-great-uranium-flap-whats-at-stake.html
In case you missed it, the piece covers the Great Uranium cartel. Please reread.
Dear Devanney,
Thank you for your good articles, which I have enjoyed. Now you wrote that "Calabrese's long carefully researched history of this mess makes no mention of BigOil. Not even a hint." But he mentioned the connection of the Rockefeller Foundation and LNT. Let me list a few.
Calabrese EJ. LNTgate: How scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment. Environ Res. 2016 Jul;148:535-546. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.03.040. Epub 2016 Apr 28. PMID: 27131569.
Calabrese EJ. On the origins of the linear no-threshold (LNT) dogma by means of untruths, artful dodges and blind faith. Environ Res. 2015 Oct;142:432-42. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.07.011. Epub 2015 Aug 4. PMID: 26248082.
Calabrese EJ. From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment. Environ Pollut. 2018 Oct;241:289-302. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.05.051. Epub 2018 May 22. PMID: 29843011.
Calabrese EJ. Precaution and Assumption and the Deceits of Corrupted Science.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Calabrese-Paunio-2020.pdf
Shizuyo Sutou, sutou@shujitsu.jp
Shizuyo,
The Rockefeller Foundation is not Big Oil.
Jack
Wasn't Big Oil interested in selling gas for electricity generation long before the turn of the millennium (in fact before the advent of nuclear energy even)? I'm sure I read that the money that allowed the Sierra Club to become such a large organization came from Californian oil interests who wanted to create a market for gas by thwarting the construction of hydroelectric dams.
You are correct 100% about ALARA and radiation limits. But these are just one method of regulating nuclear to make them economically unfeasible. When I say "fossil fuel", I meant coal and gas. Oil is almost exclusively used for transportation. It will be the mainstay for that for decades simply because people will not give up the autonomy and freedom they feel from having gasoline cars. So, coal has yielded to gas as an electricity generating fuel. That is about it. You are correct that wind and solar are viable only because gas marketers know that each increment of solar and wind needs an equal amount of gas capacity. What a racket. However, the real story is that nuclear power lives. Despite the $6 trillion subsidy of wind and solar and the 10s of billions of subsidy for gas and coal annually, leaving nuclear power dwarfed for federal support. Despite this, nuclear power is finally taking its place as the fuel for producing electricity of choice. It just remains for the gas and coal companies to see their future in nuclear power and acting accordingly in their powerful lobbying efforts. As you said, oil does not have to worry. They will be king for many decades to come. Thanks, Jack.