"Backtracks," as if it were ever sincere. I guarantee you BP planned to spin that off the second it became possible to do so. How would any of that have helped them as companies? Of course all they really care about is fossil fuels.
They tried renewables, saw that profit margins were not the same as with oil, and backtracked.
Knew that profit margins were not the same as with oil. They always knew that.
Yeah, whatever green energy shit they did was just PR. Basically telling governments they were working on pivoting away from fossil fuels, so no reason to regulate them or anything.
They will profit until we are all dead.
I honestly believe it is a necessary evil that we have a bloody revolution and we will have to chop off many capitalist heads :(
They will never stop. Never.
This visualization of global solar installations shows how far behind we already are.
What’s wrong with nuclear energy?
It's not commercially viable. Oil is very profitable.
The waste. There are currently no operational longterm storage facilities much less permanent ones. It's too expensive, so companies just go bankrupt or governments like the US just stop funding them and the waste sits in pools waiting for a natural disaster, terrorist, or war to damage them and poison the soil and water tables for generations. The Pacific Ocean already got a taste with Fukushima, but it's enormous and could absorb it...mostly, but what if a tornado hit a facility in the landlocked Midwest US?
The waste can be reprocessed, but that's more experience of course.
“Can be”. Not “is” or even “will be”
Making it somebody else's problem is always the cheapest option.
It's not the cost that stops reprocessing; it's the paranoia over proliferation of weapons-grade materials.
No it's the cost. Reprocessing wouldn't create weapons grade materials in most cases. Not anymore than the enrichment for the existing reactors anyway. Problem is that it requires expensive equipment, lots of security, and doesn't produce nearly as much energy as the existing reactors, at least not in the short term, and companies (especially publicly traded ones) only really have incentive to care about short term profit.
Then you have the problem of limited supply in a given area, and if you need to get it from all over the world, the transportation is definitely a security issue and major expense. And once you reprocess all of the existing waste, it takes time for more to be produced. Then you aren't making profit.
It's just not a profitable undertaking, so it will never happen. The general conceptual technology has existed at least as long as nuclear reactors. But hasn't been developed at all. That's the reality and will remain the reality. Especially considering that other, truly renewable energy sources are cheaper to build, and don't require as much security and maintenance to produce as much energy.
The biggest thing that would solve a lot of problems in renewables would be investing in battery and other efficient energy storage. But the fossil companies own most of that tech now, have traditionally shelved it after buying it, and with the current political atmosphere, are being incentivized to more aggressively dig for more fossil fuels rather than plan for the future. Especially in the US with the next administration planning to increase oil and coal production and eliminate the environmental restrictions that make it more expensive to dig up, process, and use what little remains.
The first step would be not to build them in disaster prone areas with hurricanes or earthquakes, and the next would be store the waste in areas with little value like the vast deserts.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/