Equally, whilst preventing concerns about energy security, they are happy to hype concerns about terorrist security. Basically it's always a right-wing frame, authoritarianism and frustrating the DFHs.
Which is why nuclear will always get preferential treatment. After all, if it really made any sense private industry would pay for it, but it won't. However, it's a specifically anti-DFH pro-authoritarian energy model. For a politician that's a no-brainer combination. keep to the Fen Causeway
Why politicians back it is mostly a matter of pork for the farm/agro-industry lobby. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
We have a in intelligentsia that doesn't believe in policy, just market provision. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
That is, the right 2.5% to 5% biofuel contribution to the mix can leverage its contribution, by eliminating transport tasks ... and it is precisely the right 2.5% to 5% contribution that is being swamped by subsidy to capital intensive, energy intensive, low EROI biofuel production.
The greenwashing of fossil fuels and tropical plantation agriculture with "biofuels" is, in other words, the enemy of starting on developing a renewable, sustainable biofuel component of the next energy economy. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
A devil's advocate might argue that biofuels is quite the opposite of nuclear in your frame.
What the EU seems to want to be on the road to pursuing is something under the name of biofuels that is as close to nuclear in the frame referred to as it is physically possible to be. Utsukushikereba sore de ii
