I’m 100% convinced there is an oil/coal lobby conspiracy here. Nuclear used to cost $3000/kw in the fucking 80s, still does in China.

America needs 700GW of Nuclear power for 100% nuclear energy AND to charge EVs. That’s just $2.1 trillion to COMPLETELY decarbonize both energy and transport. That’s 3 years of military budget, we could have done this 40 years ago :agony-consuming:

For the UK, even assuming a conservative $5k/kW cost of construction, it would cost $250 billion to fully nuclearize the electricity grid. That’s 1% of the GDP over 10 years. This 1-2% over 10-15 years figure applies more or less to all developed countries.

There is ample evidence of coal/oil interests frustrating nuclear power construction through sockpuppet environmental NGOs, lobbying to hamper nuclear development, anti-nuclear propaganda etc.

Here are 5 reasons why capital doesn’t want nuclear:

  1. Nuclear is structurally unprofitable. It requires massive initial capital investment, and there are very little running costs to profit from. Nuclear power has never been profitable anywhere, BUT IT DOESNT MATTER. It is still massively beneficial to humanity. It is living proof that profitability is not the only metric for a better society, and in fact can actively hamper building a better society.

  2. Nuclear lasts 60-80 years, modern designs could even last 100 years. Coal, Oil and even wind turbines, solar, need continual gradual replacement. See why fossil interests support wind and solar, and oppose nuclear? It’s better for them to have a constant stream of revenue. :capitalist-laugh:

  3. Virtually all reactors are owned by the state, for reasons of profitability. Nuclear is a socialist source of power, private corporations HATE that! There is a reason why China is going all in on nuclear. The Soviet Union also was planning on making nuclear it’s primary source.

  4. Resource extraction industries also extract rent, i.e super profits (according to Ricardian theory of differential rent). Uranium is a tiny fraction of nuclear costs, can’t have that, gotta get that oil/coal/gas rent.

  5. Solar/Wind requires trillions in energy storage, that’s another massive cost to humanity, but for capital - a massive source of profit :capitalist:

Edit : China built a 6000MW nuclear power plant for $10 billion. At that cost, it would cost USA just $1.2 trillion to go full nuclear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangjiang_Nuclear_Power_Station

  • Sunn_Owns [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    0·
    4 years ago

    Nuclear has a massive lobby as well that astroturfs and spends tons of $$. I won’t debate the science of nuclear vs renewables. The problem with nuclear in the US is no one wants a plant in their backyard. The red tape from lawsuits and counter-lawsuits means every nuclear plant will be slowed down by years.

    Nuclear>Coal for sure, but Renewables>Nuclear.

    • Magjee [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
      1·
      4 years ago

      De Gaulle had pushed nuclear as a national French pride issue and managed to get it done

      Otherwise everyone is too scared

  • cilantrofellow [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    0·
    4 years ago

    Too expensive up front to the point it requires centralization and top down organizing, which cannot be responsibly done in a market system. Requires a ton of money and resources to keep going too. A lot of the pro-nuclear media you consume are generally backed by people like Richard Branson, which deserves some sober consideration.

    It also has other indirect effects including concrete, transport, and mining. Don’t forget the really long construction times.

    Ideally, sure maybe that’s the best way. But if we’re looking down the barrel of global collapse during neoliberal mismanagement, any organized efforts to make nuclear happen won’t do.