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

  • DasKarlBarx [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Can someone smarter than me explain what happens with the waste? The only things I've seen boils down to "bury it underground and deal with it later" but assuming the whole grid switches to nuclear.... That's a lot of waste, right?

    • spectre [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Yes it's an issue. Nuclear fission isn't "the answer" for this reason, but it's definitely harm reduction until renewables progress further or other tech comes along.

      • kristina [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        whole point is to use fission until we hit the holy grail, nuclear fusion.

        • spectre [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          True, but I don't think it would be wise to take the risks of fission waste lightly with a literal Holy Grail like that.

          • kristina [she/her]
            ·
            4 years ago

            literally possible to get rid of the waste within 5 years through recycling its just no one wants to do the upfront costs because the capitalist mindset is a fuck

            china already does this

            • spectre [he/him]
              ·
              4 years ago

              can you spell this out some more? How does the recycling process work, and what stands in the way of doing it the US? All I ever hear about is the proverbial Yucca Mountain or whatever

              • kristina [she/her]
                ·
                4 years ago

                id have to wait until my nuclear physicist buds are online to give you a full explanation. china is currently in the process of recycling shit and have hired a lot of the world's nuclear physicists who are experts on the subject, that i know. essentially you make a couple of reactors to burn off the excess 'waste' (re: it isnt actually waste it can be used for fuel to generate a lot of electricity) and then there is something left over that dissolves within 5 years, rather than hundreds of years. it requires a hefty upfront cost and its totally worth it, its just capitalists are stupid pieces of shit and use the 'waste' argument to bolster shittier energy forms because theyre more profitable. you can also build these near already built reactors to avoid transportation issues.

                • spectre [he/him]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  This might be too big picture to figure out right here, but why is China doing renewable megaprojects at the same time then? I suppose there are valid reasons, but I feel like dealing with the waste is the critical drawback of nuclear, and it sounds like things have been figured out on that end.

                  • kristina [she/her]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    china is undergoing a massive growth spurt rn and has a lot of power outages in many regions, theyre focusing on getting energy first and foremost. look at their nuclear roadmaps, iirc theyre building 100 new nuclear plants by 2030. dont quote me on it, i just remember it was an absurd number that no western country would undertake at the same time.

                    • spectre [he/him]
                      ·
                      4 years ago

                      i just remember it was an absurd number that no western country would undertake at the same time.

                      If they're good at anything, I'd expect it to be something like building 100 nuclear plants in 10 years

      • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]
        ·
        4 years ago

        wait what does "harm reduction" mean here? wouldn't the harm reduction be not producing the waste? or are we just comparing it fossil fuels and shrugging and saying it's better than doing nothing?

        • spectre [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I mean it in the sense of comparing it to fossil fuels. We can find ways to dispose of nuclear waste, but we can't keep creating it indefinitely. It's a better challenge to solve than global warming/air pollution imo.

    • emizeko [they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      check out thorium reactors , they can run on long-term (240k year half-life) waste and turn it into <500 year waste

      Transmutation of nuclear waste: the ADS process has been proven to transmute long-term nuclear waste, harmful for 240,000 years or more, into short-term radioactivity waste of less than 500 years toxicity. The technology would solve the intractable problem of very long-term radioactive waste storage.

      https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/destroying-nuclear-waste-to-create-clean-energy-it-can-be-done/

      • pooh [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Just curious, has a modern thorium reactor ever been built recently? Do we know how long it might take to build one, including R&D?

    • sadfacenogains [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

      TLDR: not a lot of waste is produced, the tech already exists to store them safely, the cost is baked in and is only 10% of the total cost, future reactors can minimize waste

      • dallasw
        ·
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator