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:
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
one of the greatest hoodwinks in history was getting environmentalists anti-nuclear
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.
Waiting on the HBO series on Fukushima, where the faults lie on the shoulders of those peddling the immortal science of Akihito-Capitalism
Shin Godzilla just utterly mocks the entire Japanese government for over 50% of the movie. The whole movie is a very bold-faced metaphor for the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Not exactly a historical fiction miniseries, and ignoring the hilariously bad sound design its a great movie
Based Anno Hideaki
I want the sequel where Godzilla assimilates the universe and becomes a god
"See what happens when the government does energy power?? This is why we need good wholesome unregulated coal plants."
-A capitalist probably
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
We need to cesium the means of nuclear production
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 overpopulationEDIT : This may be false. I got it from reading multiple blogs that said the same thing but gave no source
Neither fun nor a fact
That's bad and all, but The Atomic Malthusians would be a great band name
jesus is that true? wtf
Fuck no lol
Love to spew shit without sources
I’ve always tied it to anti-war intermarriage with eco movements and that nuclear waste had a habit of finding itself on native lands.
Three Mile Island and "The China Syndrome" fucked nuclear power 8 ways from Sunday.
Debatable. I think it’s good environmentalist policy to oppose capitalist nuclearization.
But all nuclear reactors are either state-owned or govt granted and regulated monopolies. This is my point, there is no capitalist nuclear power plant due to their very nature
Yeah but bogiousie states always fuck this up (and even late revisionist states... chernobyl). Im still pro nucleur though, it just seems like it needs to be implemented by a strong socialist state.
And that’s why there will be no new nuclear plants in the US because the government doesn’t do anything anymore.
I mean part of the problem is there's a serious lack of capital in nuclear. And both capital and capitalist governments don't want to invest in things that won't make mountains of cash. Any real nuclear energy plan has gotta have governments footing the bill & ideally running the plants.
but uh pound for pound I'd take a nuclear plant run by capital over the equivalent coal plant tbh
Right now private enterprises are asking historically neutered governments to bankroll and subsidize their nuclear. Western states have passed their ability to run things on their own.
And we’re not just talking about coal vs nuclear but wind, solar and geothermal too. None of those work well enough on their own but they all need to be utilized. It’s not like nuclear is the worst thing ever and I’m not saying this is you but I notice it’s becoming like a weird leftist thing to be smug about how nuclear is just the no brainer fix for fossil fuels.
We want to turn western states into ones capable of running things on their own, right? The same attitude toward renewables is just doing subsidies for renewable companies and that's equally not a solution.
And its totally a weird leftist thing, its 'i believe science' smug crossed with advocacy for a maligned thing. Definite techbro energy sometimes but we're all out here just desperate for solutions so lets not be too hard on each other
Oh believe me I agree - I think we’re all here because we all hope to get actual communism working someday in the future. I just don’t know if doing exactly what a bunch of tech moguls are clamoring for right now is a great vehicle for public sector empowerment.
I’m being somewhat contrarian. If this were an anti-nuclear thread I would be arguing for some role within a larger system. It’s consistent and efficient, which is important for baseline power minimums and is also the least bad fuel-based power system. But it’d have to be a limited role for all the other reasons I brought up especially given the realities of right now.
I’ll also say those renewable subsidies would generally be dispersed because of low capital costs and can more easily go to direct consumers/taxpayers, which is more decentralized and democratic, somewhat mitigating capital accumulation.
deleted by creator