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

    • Swoosegoose [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      0·
      4 years ago

      It probably helped that one of the most high profile nuclear meltdowns came from an “evil communist” country so anti nuclear propaganda could slide into pre existing anti communist propaganda.

      • 420sixtynine [any,comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
        1·
        4 years ago

        Hilarious considering the environmental disasters in the US are just hidden (and mainly bc of our weapons manufacturing)

        The worlds largest nuclear clean up site is in the US, look up the Hanford clean up site. I know a lot of engineers from that area, here’s a story about the big project right now

        The story behind it is that some scientists dropped some Cesium on a Friday afternoon in a sealed room, one problem though: it was beer thirty and spilling nuclear material was sounding like Monday’s problem. They got there on Monday, mess magically cleaned itself! and by cleaned itself it actually corroded down into the soil and that patch of dirt is so hot that if the radiation didn’t kill you then temperature would. I shit you not this is what happened

    • sadfacenogains [none/use name]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      0·
      4 years ago

      Fun fact, the early opposition to nuclear power from environmentalists was not because of safety but because they were afraid that cheap power would contribute to overpopulation

      EDIT : This may be false. I got it from reading multiple blogs that said the same thing but gave no source