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
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
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.
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.