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

    • disco [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      I would. Coal power plants fuck up the environment when working as intended.

      Edit: in case people didn't know, coal power plants emit more radioactive material than nuclear power plants and they emit it directly into the air, rather than easily contained pellets. The idea that nuclear power is environmentally unsound is a product of big oil astro-turfing environmental movements, full stop.

      • Quimby [any, any]
        ·
        3 years ago

        but the pro-nuclear stuff is the result of astroturfing and propaganda by the nuclear lobby...

        oh shit... is it ALL astroturfing? what if I'M astroturfing... oh noooooooo

        • disco [any]
          ·
          3 years ago

          We don't really have a nuclear power industry in the US, certainly not one with anywhere near the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry.

          • Quimby [any, any]
            ·
            3 years ago

            maybe, maybe not. but the comments here almost literally alternate between people saying "it's the nuclear lobby" and "it's the anti-nuclear lobby" and it's kind of funny.