There have been some misunderstandings of my usage of the term “Fossil Nuke”, which I have introduced in this post opening the new category, in this comment on BNC:
The term “fossil nukes” is interesting – and as a term of abuse it packs a double punch.
Fossil nukes are probably on the payroll of fossil fuel vendors (as well as living in the past) and certainly nuke supporters (probably including nuclear weapons!). Sounds like the “energy from the desert” debate may be heading for the lowest common denominator.
As I explained in that post:
The “Nuke” part is self-explaining. The “Fossil” part is due to the fact that since these people try to slow down deployment of renewable energy, they slow down replacement of fossil fuel, until such time as their dreams of super efficient “Integrated Fast Reactors” supported by the necessary majorities come true.
There is no intent on insulting or abusing anyone connected with this shorthand. It just follows necessarily from my opinion that their opposition to renewable energy slows down replacement of fossil fuel. And using “Fossil Nuke” is just more convenient than writing “a person supporting nuclear power and opposing renewable energy, thereby making climate change worse by slowing down the deployment of renewable energy, if anybody listened to that person.”
And there is certainly no assertion that the fossil fuel industry pays the “Fossil Nukes” for their efforts. As noted before when I was defending Barry Brook, that would imply that there is something worth paying for.
The “living in the past” aspect is something I have not thought about before. But it might be objectively true, since the nuclear technology actually in use today dates from over fifty years ago, and the one they are dreaming of (playing with plutonium in deadly integral fast reactors) was rejected decades ago. They are just now celebrating the publication of a book detailing the history of that rejection. But there is no need to decide on that point, since that is not anything I intend to imply with the term anyway.
The latter part of the comment is half correct. Of course “Nuke” means someone supporting nuclear energy. If you understand that as an insult, that is not my problem. I am nowhere saying anything about what “Fossil Nukes” might think or not think about nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, I think that the fight against global warming would be far better off without Barry Brook’s useless and harmful “Brave New Climate” blog.
[...] For those who might not be familiar with the term “fossil nuke”, that is my shorthand for the position that supports nuclear energy while opposing renewable. More on that here. [...]
[...] has coined an interesting label for the few remaining fossil fuel and nuclear propagandists — Fossil Nukes. Many of these people are genuine believers in the agendas they push. Unfortunately, they [...]