So, bottom line: nuclear power plants are too expensive and without massive state investment not feasible under capitalism?
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2025
50 points (94.6% liked)
Hacker News
1315 readers
277 users here now
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
They're a long-term investment. That requires people to plan for the future.
It also requires your country to have natural resources, otherwise you end up buying the uranium ore from Iran, Russia or Niger
Are you saying the country that created the first ever nuclear bomb does not have uranium deposits?
No.
Let me rephrase: if you want Uranium ore for civil purposes you may be forced to financially support the biggest assholes in some shithole country. The US may have rich Uranium mines in Indian reservations, but to supply large commercial undertakings, such as the current buildout of reactors, there has to be a much more massive supply chain.
See here: "Imports accounted for 99% of the U3O8 they used in 2023 to make nuclear fuel. "
They take years to get running. And that's a number of quarterly reports with only losses. Line Must Always Go Up.
So, by using fossil fuels (which America has lots of), it causes more pollution, which heats up the world, which melts the ice, which exposes land under Greenland / the caps / which allows companies to drill and sell oil and gas...
That's Trump's real intention. To make more money for certain companies who have ~~bribed~~ paid him...
Ayy I heard he had cancer. Its nice seeing him doing ok
Now he has a comedy special about having had cancer.
I'm dismayed by three hook line of this video but I'm looking forward to getting to watch it