Why doesn’t the fossil fuel industry back nuclear? One reason is that because of all the capital investment (pipelines, coal trains, deals with dictators controlling oil and gas fields) which would be worthless in a nuclear world.

And I suspect much of the bribery of politicians comes not from Exxon or other stereotypical “Big Oil” companies, but from fuel suppliers for whom the effect of nuclear expansion would be entirely negative. In the case of Gerhard Schroeder, it was Gazprom (the Russian nationalized gas supplier) which bribed him.

As long as nuclear power (the only real competitor to fossil fuels) is safely suppressed, AGW campaigners are no real threat to the fossil fuel industry because the environmentalist ambition of rationing energy is violently unpopular with the public.

I wonder how much money anti-nuclear organizations are taking from the fossil fuel industry? In the United States, the Sierra Club’s campaign against dams (which began for traditional conservationist reasons) received a big boost from Big Oil in California, who wanted to sell gas for electricity generation and therefore wanted to curb hydro-electricity (which was then the main competitor to fossil fuels for this purpose).

Another example is that a lot of the push for offshore wind turbines comes from companies which traditionally built offshore oil rigs. The skills involved are much the same…

Exactly. Looking for motivations just means there isn’t enough evidence to make a clear case. And motivations are going to be different anyway. An extreme environmentalist has their whole ego wrapped up in their belief system. But we don’t dismiss them purely on that. If AGW is true, then they will in effect be doing us a service. They are like a sub-routine in humanity’s culture, exploring and promoting and warning us of one possibility. Meanwhile others care more about the economy, and other care more about other stuff.

The original call of the enlightenment was to “dare to think for yourselves”. And sure we’re all motivated to think different things and take different perspectives. But in the end, which perspective is the most correct for a particular issue or problem? The scientific method leads to that. You can be evil and practice the scientific method and despite being evil, if you did it right your experiment can be reproduced by someone else, even a good person.

Point taken. Designed for submarines, but often built with the intention of making bombs.

Corrupt politicians are always a problem. But if there’s money to be made in nuclear, why wouldn’t the fossil fuel industry move into it? And is there no mining industry to compete for pocketable politicians? Why does everyone seem to believe that Exxon secretly runs the world? And why do they allow the AGW panic to have the political traction it does?

I’ve heard a rumour that some guy invented a way to turn water into petrol using a handful of herbs, but the oil giants bought the patent, locked it up in a safe, and kept it quiet. Obviously they wouldn’t want to use it themselves, because it’s so much easier and more profitable to drill for it.

Although I suppose it would explain why the oil hasn’t run out despite the environmentalists telling us it would all be gone by about 1980. Hmmm…

True of British reactors, but not true of the PWRs that are now the most common type of nuclear reactor worldwide – those were based on designs originally intended for submarine propulsion.

Oh, and I don’t think that “environmentalists” per se are the biggest obstacle to nuclear expansion. I think that corrupt politicians in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry (like former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder) are a bigger problem.

Another possible problem is the US Dollar, which since the end of Bretton-Woods in the 1970s has been effectively backed by oil. Perhaps the Americans suppress nuclear power for fear that it would collapse the dollar?

They shouldn’t do. Bear in mind that existing reactors are mostly based on 30+ year old designs specifically intended for bomb-making. There are about a dozen modern designs that have been arranged to make this far more difficult. See for example this discussion of the IFR design.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html

The primary problems are environmentalists, and the economic cost of meeting all the safety regulations piled on by environmentalists.

Everything else is just engineering.

If there was a billion dollars a year spent on skeptics groups it wouldn’t match News Corporation propaganda. Once upon a time it was possible to argue that skeptics groups were well funded, but nowadays the majority of the mass media supports the AGW theory. I’m an environmentalist, but George Monbiot needs to cut the crap. It’s not like CIF is ITN News. Even if there are a few paid skeptics, there are hundreds of thousands of paid environmentalists who openly comment on internet forums, including George Monbiot himself. What is he on about?

“(…) In the last year, it has dawned on ACC advocates like George that the governments are powerless and will not fix this problem, or in fact do very much about it at all. He is driven to rage and despair – I would be too if I believed the worst of the prognostications and believed I had a duty to ’save the world’, which of course the leading lights in this little farrago must feel. They are failing in their duty to get the great and good to pull their noses out of trough long enough to realise the sky is indeed falling, and it’s driving them mad. I feel for them, understand their desperation and the guilt I think goes with it, but now they want someone to blame, someone they can point a finger at and say “see, it’s your fault, not mine. I did my best…”
And this is why in the last year, the subject has changed. The principle topic is no longer climate change, but denialism…The climate change debate is no longer about mitigation, because nobody well informed on the subject believes for one second that we are going to effect any substantial change in our consuming habits, as the lack of meaningful agreement in the run-up meetings to Copenhagen are making all too clear. Things are going to get ugly now, because all that’s left is to try and find someone defenceless enough on which pin the blame for whatever happens next. Right now, that’s Scunnered, and it’s a form of cheap, hectoring, self-righteous bullying I think is a disgrace. George, you’ve really let me and the agenda down …”

Claude Rains being shocked and outraged by immoral behaviour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1DEG6BWgp0

Wow. Talk about paranoia and conspiracy-mongering! It’s all about The Other Guy, you see. He’s the one trying to derail us, try to make it look like we’re the bad guys here, but we’ll prevail! We won’t let those bastards grind us down! Even if we end up looking like our sanity is of questionable quality while doing it.

[Okay. I've said my mean comment. Now where's my paycheque?]