I absolutely would and have done so: www.vaneck.com/…/uranium-nuclear-energy-etf-nlr/
Comment on We can do all three things at once
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Would you put your own money into nuclear power these days?
hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
psmgx@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sure would. I put money into renewable stocks and they tanked hard. Looking at you RNW.
We already run carriers and subs on nukes, supertankers and massive cargo ships could use them too. And arguably should, given they’re a huge, massive source of pollution.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
So why do you think this is not happening? And if your answer is regulations, which regulations exactly would you scarp to make this commercially viable?
Iceblade02@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I literally own a bit of stock in the most nuclear-power-related company in my country - so yes.
Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 month ago
I wouldn't build a new power plant, but reactivating existing ones makes sense and is cheaper per GW than solar and reactivation has insignificant emissions.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This answer shows that you have no idea of how this stiff works. Reactivating a shut down nuclear plant would require re-certification. Nobody is going to re-certify a plant built on 1960s technology today and for good reason. If you wanted to bring one of those up to modern standards you might as well build a new one.
Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 month ago
Nobody is going to re-certify a plant built on 1960s technology
Yeah, that's why they're re-starting one built on 1970s technology
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It still faces hurdles, including inspections, testing and the blessing of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, known as the NRC.
Yeah, let’s see how that goes.
endhits@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes - it’s called my fucking electricity bill.
xkbx@startrek.website 1 month ago
Paper money, sure. But nickels and dimes? No thanks, I don’t want to walk around with radioactive currency
MrVilliam@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I would. ROI takes longer, but they’re super fucking profitable as soon as they turn a profit at all. They’re generally base loaded 24/7 except for about 3-4 weeks per year for refueling outage. I’m 35, so assume 10 years to build and another 10 years before it starts profiting. I’m retired at 55. Sounds pretty good to me.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Citation needed.
My state has a pair of nuclear plants built in the 70s, 40+ years ago. Not only are they not profitable. They lose lots of money every year. In 2021, these two plants lost $93 million. source - warning PDF
The only way these two nuclear plants became profitable was when Republicans were bribed by the energy company to force increased rates and fees on the citizens so the energy companies could make a profit while also gutting the green energy initiatives in the state. I’m not even exaggerating any of this. The former Republican speaker of the house is now in prison serving 20 years accepting something close to (from memory) $150 million in bribes. source
If you can tell me when nuclear power gets cheaper, I’d really like to see it. We certainly haven’t here.
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well, in Germany the government basically paid for all the R&D. Then they massively subsidised the construction. Then the nukes were profitable for a while, especially after they got to run them way past their design life. And finally, the government got stuck with most of the bill for decommissioning. So all in all, nukes are a great way for privatising profits and socialising losses, which is what our current economic system is all about.
xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
That just sounds like a shitty government huffing neoliberal bullshit. Privatizing public services is a terrible idea - just ask AirCanada.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Watch out, some dickhead might accuse you of sealioning.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Wouldn’t be the first time. If someone makes a claim, they can back it up. I do.
MrVilliam@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Source for profitability of nuclear over time
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Thank you for sharing your source. I’d prefer a document instead of a 23 minute video, but it is valid for how you arrived at your conclusion.
However, the source video makes some wildly incorrect assumptions to arrive at nuclear profitability.
We have the benefit of new reactors coming online in the USA in just the last year, so our numbers are current for real world nuclear plant costs. This would be the Vogtle nuclear power station in Georgia source.
This example is even more favorable to the argument for nuclear profitability. The plant already existed prior and the recent construction was simply adding additional reactors. So there should be some economies of scale. Here’s how that shook out compared to your video:
Image
So your source wildly underestimated the cost and time to build (and likely the interest rate). Keep in mind, they also build reactor Unit 4 at about the same time (coming online about a year later). The cost of Unit 3 and Unit 4 was $35m to build and started in 2009. I was generous and only used a single reactor cost as the video’s example did for apples-to-apples comparison.
These factors destroy the argument that new modern nuclear building in the USA is profitable.
IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The alternative is to be making bank on a far smaller outlay much more quickly with renewables.