3 ms·

I have no idea what link you're making between nuclear power and the military industrial complex. The vast majority of nations with nuclear power have no nuclea

I have no idea what link you're making between nuclear power and the military industrial complex. The vast majority of nations with nuclear power have no nuclear weapons program - Germany first and foremost, for obvious WWII-related reasons.

pydry 2y ago
The nations that actually build it (not every country with nuclear power builds its own nuclear power stations) are split into countries that have it and countries that have, say, signed the NPT but have a geopolitical rival that makes them afraid enough to want to be able to build nukes in a hurry one day. Iran is one - they have very legitimate fears about a very particular country. They don't have a legitimate economic reason to build nuclear power, which is why America got very angry at them. America knew why they were building a PWR and weren't buying the "exclusively for peaceful civilian purposes" excuse. But they're not the only ones. Sweden is another. They even used to have a nuclear program, in fact. Poland is also one. Well, Poland wasn't so afraid of any geopolitical rivals 3 years ago. It has recently become afraid for... reasons. It has only recently developed an interest in building nuclear power even though it didn't suddenly get any cheaper. What a coincidence. As I said before: the cost is very very high. It is staggering, in fact. If you don't have a good non-economic reason to build it you don't.
- simiones 2y ago
  So in most of the countries building nuclear power, civilian authorities are using civilian contractors to build civilian-run nuclear power using civilian scientists. They may be doing this with the intention of having the personnel, know-how, resources, and basic machines to be able to kick-start a nuclear weapons program if needed - fair enough. I'm still failing to see where the military-industrial complex is profiting from this arrangement. > Poland is also one. Well, Poland wasn't so afraid of any geopolitical rivals 3 years ago. It has recently become afraid for... reasons. It has only recently developed an interest in building nuclear power even though it didn't suddenly get any cheaper. What a coincidence. I wonder if any raw materials that Poland was using for power generation have become more expensive in recent years because of internal or external sources. Oh look, they're mining out their cheap coal, and Russia is cutting off access to cheap gas. > As I said before: the cost is very very high. It is staggering, in fact. If you don't have a good non-economic reason to build it you don't. Switzerland recently spent more on a complex underground pumped water energy storage system than South Korea spent on its most recent nuclear power plant - and the South Korean plant has more raw production capacity than the Swiss system has just storage capacity. Nuclear power is only prohibitively expensive in countries which have lost (or never had) nuclear production know-how. SK proves that very well, and Japan is not far off. Of course, nuclear plants are highly capital intensive. But they are extremely long lasting. But high-capacity long-term energy storage is also extremely capital-intensive, and is required to have a secure energy grid with a high percentage of renewables. Renewables are only extremely cheap if you look at a relatively small percentage for variable peak production. And they are also requiring a massive overhaul of power grid management, which is another cost that is rarely discussed.

pydry 2y ago

The nations that actually build it (not every country with nuclear power builds its own nuclear power stations) are split into countries that have it and countries that have, say, signed the NPT but have a geopolitical rival that makes them afraid enough to want to be able to build nukes in a hurry one day. Iran is one - they have very legitimate fears about a very particular country. They don't have a legitimate economic reason to build nuclear power, which is why America got very angry at them. America knew why they were building a PWR and weren't buying the "exclusively for peaceful civilian purposes" excuse. But they're not the only ones. Sweden is another. They even used to have a nuclear program, in fact. Poland is also one. Well, Poland wasn't so afraid of any geopolitical rivals 3 years ago. It has recently become afraid for... reasons. It has only recently developed an interest in building nuclear power even though it didn't suddenly get any cheaper. What a coincidence. As I said before: the cost is very very high. It is staggering, in fact. If you don't have a good non-economic reason to build it you don't.

simiones 2y ago
So in most of the countries building nuclear power, civilian authorities are using civilian contractors to build civilian-run nuclear power using civilian scientists. They may be doing this with the intention of having the personnel, know-how, resources, and basic machines to be able to kick-start a nuclear weapons program if needed - fair enough. I'm still failing to see where the military-industrial complex is profiting from this arrangement. > Poland is also one. Well, Poland wasn't so afraid of any geopolitical rivals 3 years ago. It has recently become afraid for... reasons. It has only recently developed an interest in building nuclear power even though it didn't suddenly get any cheaper. What a coincidence. I wonder if any raw materials that Poland was using for power generation have become more expensive in recent years because of internal or external sources. Oh look, they're mining out their cheap coal, and Russia is cutting off access to cheap gas. > As I said before: the cost is very very high. It is staggering, in fact. If you don't have a good non-economic reason to build it you don't. Switzerland recently spent more on a complex underground pumped water energy storage system than South Korea spent on its most recent nuclear power plant - and the South Korean plant has more raw production capacity than the Swiss system has just storage capacity. Nuclear power is only prohibitively expensive in countries which have lost (or never had) nuclear production know-how. SK proves that very well, and Japan is not far off. Of course, nuclear plants are highly capital intensive. But they are extremely long lasting. But high-capacity long-term energy storage is also extremely capital-intensive, and is required to have a secure energy grid with a high percentage of renewables. Renewables are only extremely cheap if you look at a relatively small percentage for variable peak production. And they are also requiring a massive overhaul of power grid management, which is another cost that is rarely discussed.