Chernobyl. It's so profitable, it keeps on giving even half a century later.

Is this true? Because Holy shit this would be hilarious if it was.

Well yeah, it's a service. Expecting profit from necessary services is stupid and counter-productive but it makes a few people rich so of course it happens then you get memes like this.

Even if this were true, would that be important nowadays? If it can push out climate change and make it into a problem to solve later (in case of fission). Fusion would be great though

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

Well you could just like, put all that tax money into decentralized renewable energy sources...that would also be profitable.

While not causing waste that cant be touched for the next million years.

While also lessening your dependence on nuclear fuel imports from political less than optimal nations or sources where the mining of it causes radio active dust to contaminate the population (Russia/USA and Australia).

Stop projecting lol

This view on it is the exact reason why i made this meme, this shit has to stop its a tale propagated by the fissile fuel industry.

I am open to change my mind on this, but i never seen evidence for a single one that was profitable when you include development cost, maintenance, build back and disposal (and long term maintenance of disposal).

Thats fusion tho

why is there such a negative sentiment towards nuclear power? was it all oil and gas propaganda? or is there some truth

I whole heartedly agree. And to anyone who complains about dunkelflaute, if we wouldn't immediately burn our biogas, and instead stored it where we currently store our fossil gas, we would have a way more comfortable safety margin. Also a stronger European powergrid would be sufficient for almost all usual cases throughout the year.

You never specified otherwise.

Nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive to build.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_buildings

most of costs are costs of construction. french and koreans don't seem discouraged and some plants in japan and china were built under budget. finland energy supply has large fraction of nuclear and they have extremely cheap electricity

base load

Because it only makes sense if you also need to run nuclear Submarines with ICBMs on them.

Basically Nuclear power has always been a military project thats just "Dual use" to offset the cost by having tax payers foot the bill for civilians plants.

Doing that makes the whole supply chain cheaper for the Military usage....cuz mining it only for military usage only would be hella expensive and harder to justify towards the population.

thats what i gave your mom last night

Maybe learn to write correctly

Profitable wants to say it costs less to operate

how dare they wanting tip earn money

Did I miss something in the edited post, or are you just violating rule 1 out of spite?

True

Chernobyl, Fukushima, 3 Mile Island. Plus uranium is another non-renewable resource.

I'm still pro nuke as getting off fossil fuels is of the utmost urgency, but we will have to learn to live off wind and solar.

they also last decades and are cheap to run with extremely low carbon emissions

It can't. It takes WAY too long to build, and for what it is the whole work isn't worth it.

The volume of renewables and batteries (Incl. Sodium-Ion, great tech for the grid) we can produce outpaces nuclear by a long shot, is safer, cleaner, available quicker, easier to install, easier to regulate (once the batteries are up, it's a combo deal) and especially more "for the people" (you can carry and install smaller units of solar and wind anywhere).

I also thought nuclear (fission) made somewhat sense a few years ago, but it really doesn't in any way shape or form. Countries who're dead-set on nuclear such as France are already running into SO mamy problems. They're building a huge financial pile of shit for the current and next generation to be fucked over by.

In Canada nuclear power generation is more about creating jobs by rebuilding 50 year old reactors than it is about producing cheap energy.

well you would

the man who decided to end german nuclear power production getting a seat in gazprom doesn't inspire confidence in reality-based discussion of this subject

I wasn't talking about building new ones. I agree with that. But the ones that already exist shouldn't be shut down until they are replaced by renewables.

those people could also build and maintain windmills tho

Sun isn't profitable. We should just extinguish it.

The things are very much run as private companies under the pretense of being profitable. The whole purpose of nukes (other than providing weapons grade material) is shoveling public money into private pockets.

But that would enrich the oligarchy slightly more slowly! Won't anybody think of the poor oligarchs?

I feel like the deeper truth highlighted here is that being pro-nuclear, or anti-anti-nuclear, is very much a “reddit” style opinion.

Whatever the actual truth is, that is. It seems to fall neatly into the “I know something and can make a ‘well actyooally’ argument about it” category without having expertise like being on top of the historical financial performance and context of the technology, about which I personally know nothing.

Ideally we figure out some sweet Nuclear Fusion.

And where there’s no wind?

If it can push out climate change and make it into a problem to solve later (in case of fission).

Pushing all the problems nuclear brings to the future is the exact same mistake past generations have done with fossil fuels.

If we don't combat climate change now, we never will.

You can cherry pick the numbers to show whatever you like.

Wikipedia has an article on the economics of nuclear power. To summarize: it's expensive upfront. If you look at it from a pure commercial enterprise it's not really worth it. If you look at it as decarbonizing the future it's better.

Solar and wind is cheaper, but intermittent and it's a question if we can wait for grid scale energy storage being viable before we cook ourselves.

Million year really , so you talk about the EXTREMELY small portion of nuclear waste ? Also why not both , why not nuclear AND solar / wind / hydro electricity? Because all those renewable energy sources are either limited (hydro electricity) or intermittent (solar / wind)
And I know you dont care but Yes we can bury nuclear waste if we do it properly, there already were natural nuclear reactor on earth way before humanity and it didnt kill everything where they were.

Probably the same solution they used to make cars work without power cords.

here already were natural nuclear reactor on earth way before humanity and it didnt kill everything where they were.

Uhm, a river flowing thru low grade non enriched uranium deposit isnt a reactor in the way we build em today, like not even close.

First of all. I'm against nuclear power plants.

But. This right here, is a weird argument against it. I would even say, its no argument against it at all.
We should not produce anything with the focus to make a profit. We should produce to meet needs.
I would say that for the entire industry.

And even if you're not for a democratic industry that is owned by the people, you should at least see that there are some services where it just makes even less sense to look for profit. For example energy production, healthcare, public transport or the food industry. These are all fundamental services that just need to work. They should never have to focus on generating a profit. Even many liberals have realised this.

This is only for uranium and plutonium based nuclear power. There are others that don't produce weapons grade byproducts. Helium 3 for instance and other versions of uranium. Also cobalt is an option.

As long as we want to pay for power, it can be profitable, in the sense that we pay what we need and people who work there are paid fairly as well.

100% agree

i just used the word "profitable" cuz its shorter than "morally non justifiable nonsense" and because its a metric thats much more easy to fact check and not as subjective as moral complains.

Why not do all of these things. Build nuclear power plants, do battery storage, do renewables, carbon capture, plant trees etc, etc, etc. if the goal is reverse, stabilize or slow climate change. There isn't 1 silver bullet, we need to do all the things.

Sounds like a political science and economics problem, don't know why we needed to harass physics nerds about it

Any source for this significant claim?

The German ministry for Safety of nuclear energy (BASE) published an official statement that nuclear energy is not only unsafe, but also way too expensive:

https://www.base.bund.de/shareddocs/faktencheck/base/de/atomstrom-alternative-energiequellen-kosten.html

There are studies by the Deutsches Insitut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW, German Institute of Economic Research) that show significant higher costs per kWh than other power sources:

https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.867887.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2023_10_1/ausbau_von_kernkraftwerken_entbehrt_technischer_und_oekonomischer_grundlagen.html

https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.670481.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2019_30_1/zu_teuer_und_gefaehrlich__atomkraft_ist_keine_option_fuer_eine_klimafreundliche_energieversorgung.html

At my company, we work together with the Gesellschaft für Endlagerung (BGE). These guys are responsible to find safe long time storage for nuclear waste. Spoiler: as of now, there is no such thing as safe long time storage.

The German energy provider Enbw claims costs per kWh to be as high as 0.49€ for nuclear energy, which is ridiculous high. And they did not even factor in the high costs of safe long time storage!

100% agree

Huh? alright then.

i just used the word "profitable" cuz its shorter than "morally non justifiable nonsense" and because its a metric that's much more easy to fact check and not as subjective as moral complains.

I don't quite seem to understand what you mean or what you tried to say with this meme then.
There is much more then just "subjective moral complains" or a neoliberal standing point to look for profits in everything.
I mean yes. Profit Numbers are more easy to look up maybe. But... it doesn't really help does it? Its not a metric that's important at all, like you also agreed to.

Just like any military.

That does not sound universal, that sounds like an artifact of how things are done in your country.

Efficient use of resources still matters in a service-driven model.

The service in this case is to provide electricity - if other alternatives can provide the same system of electricity while using less resources in the process, then it is clearly preferable.