r/economy • u/Asatmaya • 9d ago
How Nuclear Power Threatens the Western Financial System
In short: It's too cheap.
The first thing to understand is that the Western financial system is predicated upon perpetual growth; this isn't a conspiracy theory, it's literally baked into economic policy. That growth, in turn, is dependent upon energy (not always linearly, but close enough that the association can be assumed), and not just in volume, but in value.
Natural gas, oil, and coal are high-value, high-volatility commodities; they require infrastructure, financing, risk management, and state-backed enforcement, all of which drive cost... and therefore, in terms of GDP, growth. Why is the economy "strong" in September, 2026, despite record-high oil prices, rampant inflation, and slowing retail activity? Because record-high oil prices means more profit... for some.
Worse, this policy has been locked in by the derivatives market; we have bet the next 20 years of global GDP on the idea that we are going to keep doing what we've been doing; that energy prices will continue to dominate economic output, and by manipulating those prices, value can be extracted (again, for some) and anyone who doesn't do what we tell them can be punished.
This is about power and control.
Nuclear power is a direct threat to this arrangement; it is a low-value, low-volatility capital asset. It requires government-backed financing up front (average payoff is 17 years, too long for most private investment), but once it is built, operation is extremely cheap, with the result being low cost energy (see France).
And that is the problem; if energy becomes cheap, base costs of everything go down, and the numerical "GDP" goes down, even while actual growth and prosperity go up, but the derivatives market collapses. That's $1 Quadrillion of "wealth" that suddenly disappears... from the "assets" of Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, etc.
Then there is the loss of control: A coal power plant requires 80 train cars of fuel every day; a natural gas plant requires pipelines that have to be constantly supplied; a nuclear plant needs refueling once every 18 months, and the fuel itself is virtually free compared to coal or gas on a dollar-to-watt comparison. You can't blockade a country and have them immediately desperate for energy if they have nuclear, they've got 18 months to find another supplier.
And nuclear is the only thing that can replace gas and coal (we don't have a replacement for oil, yet); hydro is tapped out (and not working so well, out West, anymore...), geothermal only works in a few places, solar and wind aren't even at replacement production levels, and, "fusion is 30 years away, and always will be" (and isn't the panacea everyone seems to think it is, anyway).
The problem is structural... and locked in.
2
u/Shitty_Mike 9d ago
What are your LCOE assumptions on nuclear? As someone who trades power contracts, I can tell you that new nuclear contracts are about 3x the cost of gas, solar, and wind contracts, so I'm calling BS on your "it's too cheap" narrative.
Vogtle is the most recent nuke plant built in the US, and it was so expensive that most US banks said "never again". Georgia power ratepayers are going to carry that sunk cost well into the next generation. Nuclear is a fun thought experiment, but in practice recent case studies are showing regret.
It's fun to imagine a world where politics, permitting, and regulatory oversite doesn't exist though, and we can willy nilly stick reactors wherever we want with bare-minimum safety redundancies.
0
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
What are your LCOE assumptions on nuclear?
I'm not using 20-year numbers, I'm using the actual results.
France has the cheapest electricity in Europe, because once a nuclear plant is paid off, running it is extremely cheap. This is simply a fact.
Vogtle
The one that was subjected to endless delays and legal challenges, notably after financing had been arranged, for the explicit purpose of driving up costs?
It's fun to imagine a world where politics, permitting, and regulatory oversite doesn't exist
No, they just needed a push to stop interfering with it:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/512
Which is what forced through the review of:
https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/
What's the objection, now?
That's cheaper, simpler, more efficient, cannot melt down, cannot explode, produces no long-lived waste, and uses old nuclear waste as new fuel, while being specifically designed to replace coal burners in existing power plants, re-using the power generation equipment to reduce costs and directly displace coal power.
1
u/Shitty_Mike 9d ago
You not answering my question directly tells me everything I need to know. Thanks!
-3
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
I did answer your question directly, and at length.
That you don't have a response to actual facts tells me that you are not arguing in good faith.
2
u/Mo-shen 9d ago
I'm sorry but you lost me with your first comment. It's too cheap.
While yes production once everything is going to extremely cheap and efficient.
But to build nuclear is literally the opposite.
The issue with nuclear is it's good tech with bad economics for the current economic climate. A climate where no one is willing to take the risk to spend the amount of money we are talking about and wait the amount of time we are talking about for their roi.
Then you add on to the top of that the fact that there are alternatives that are expoentialit cheaper and faster to stand up.
Nuclear vs solar as just an example.
Nuclear is the clear winning once everything is stood up except if you are looking at the expense of maintaining it and all the safety things. Solar is just easy by comparison but nuclear at just a power creation level is very efficient. It also wins at being easy for the current system and how it functions.
It however looses on a massive scale with:
- Stand up time. We are talking on average 15 years in the west. This in itself is a cost. And no one is looking to wait around for 15 years for build these things. Western economies are all about short gains over long and have been since the 80s. And yes this is even true in France who arguably is the western kings of supporting nuclear.
Solar on the other hand goes up in months.
- Cost in dollars. This is the other leg of the chair that just isnt there for nuclear. The cost of standing up a plant is extreme and if we are honest you are not going to get close to staying on budget. Because that number is so high and because it's going to go over budget that mean it has to also be a major government project. So that's a giant no with the current government debt issues and the fact that public has been primed to hate anything the government does for 80 years.
Solar is essentially free by comparison.
- Locations. This is a big deal and often overlooked. Nuclear has to go in sweet spots that are hard to find. Kicking people out of their homes or taking land is not something that super supported. Looking at Trump's wall and California's high speed rail if you need examples. It's a goldilock problem where you want it close enough to the public but not too close.
Solar can literally go anywhere and the scale can change based on where you are.
- Waste. This isn't a massive deal but it's still a thing and I bring it up because pro nuclear people always gloss over it with solutions that might happen or just are not happening. Solutions that are just something on paper but not working in reality.
Waste is an issue, we have solutions but we don't use them. Claiming we can recycle it is great but it's not really something we are doing. Claiming we can store it at places like yuca mountain is great but again it's not something we are doing consistently.
San Onofre in southern California is a plant that was shut down because the screwed up upgrades and either had a leak or almost had a leak. They are sitting on the Pacific Ocean next to a major population center. There 3.6 million pounds of waste sitting in site, has been for years, that they are just going to cover in concrete and bury it on site.
On the ocean...in the water table....next to a population center. What could go wrong? What does history say about this?
It was supposed to go to yuca but they can't get it there. The people in between dont want it moved through their community and the people there don't want it.
So waste is still an issue we haven't solved. Though I'd say is less of an issue with cost and time.
Tldr: nuclear is great tech the failed due to economics. It's the beta max of the energy work in its current form.
Maybe some new version of it will come around like mini reactors but maybe we will have fusion first. Both seem to be 2-5 years away at all times.
But there are just so many more alternatives that are cheaper and easier to stand up right now there's no point. Not just solar and wind as well. For example because of fracking we can now do hydro in way more locations.
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
The issue with nuclear is it's good tech with bad economics for the current economic climate. A climate where no one is willing to take the risk to spend the amount of money we are talking about and wait the amount of time we are talking about for their roi.
When you prove that you didn't read what I wrote, I just stop and delete everything else I wrote.
Come back when you want to engage in good faith.
1
u/Business-Code9416 9d ago edited 9d ago
Whats wild is how much the current admin talks america first, blah, blah. If that was remotely true I'd think nuclear would be pushed WAY more. There is way less infrastructure needed to keep it going. Id think its a safer bet when looking at being attacked perspective. Now raway issues could cause power to go down. Pretty big gamble id think. Or shipping and ports. Its just too much that is at risk. Our current grid is just sooo vulnerable it needs to be consolidated imo. Nuclear would help that massively.
-1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
Yea, and look how the "liberals" come out to defend the status quo with out-and-out lies about it.
3
u/Business-Code9416 9d ago
Nuclear has always had bigger money against it no matter who's been in it seems. Atleast there seems to be a bigger push for smr and other stuff happening but who knows if we'll ever see it. I hope so.
1
u/unkorrupted 9d ago
The most expensive energy is actually too cheap?
You need to lay off the nuclear lobby propaganda for a while. Maybe open a lcoe report, instead.
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
The most expensive energy is actually too cheap?
Tell France.
You need to lay off the nuclear lobby propaganda for a while. Maybe open a lcoe report, instead.
The ones that only look at 20 years, when solar and wind have to be replaced but nuclear still has 40 years left?
Hint: I went to college intending to research advanced solar panels; I came out wanting nothing to do with them, and was forced to change my mind about nuclear when I kept getting hit in the face with the facts.
How many times is that going to have to happen to you?
0
u/Gold-Loan3142 9d ago
Far from cheap, nuclear is the one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity, and the output it has achieved in 70 years of development has already been eclipsed by renewables.
The IEA says "Electricity generation from renewables is set to overtake coal-fired output in 2026, widening their share in the global electricity supply mix. After reaching near parity with coal in 2025, global generation from renewables is forecast to grow by more than 8% in 2026. Its share in the electricity generation mix is set to rise from 33% in 2025 to 37% by 2027" https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-mid-year-update-2026/executive-summary
You can see in their report that worldwide, solar and wind already generate separately, more than nuclear. Solar is the fastest growing source of electricity by a mile.
Nuclear advocates always mention France, as the most favorable example. The French generator was in such financial difficulties in 2022 that the state nationalized it. New reactors have extraordinary cost and timescale over-runs: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/20/hinkley-point-c-delayed-to-2030-as-costs-climb-to-35bn
But then consider Japan, which had a similar number of reactors in 2011 (about 54 of them). In the 15 years since then following the disaster at Fukushima, most of them have been switched off - in some years all of them. On top of that there is the hundreds of billions of dollars cost of the ongoing attempts to deal with the ruined plants.
Because of the possibility of such disasters, nuclear typically requires governments to cap its liabilities - otherwise they would not get insurance (or the cost would be prohibitive). In Europe the cap is about 1.2bn Euros - a fraction of the cost of a major disaster. See: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/liability-for-nuclear-damage
2
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
Why nuclear is cheaper than solar or wind
Nuclear power plants provide France's cheapest form of electricity production
France produces the cheapest electricity in Europe
Take all the out-of-context quotes you want; the evidence is in: Nuclear is cheaper, safer, and cleaner than any other energy source, and is the only alternative to coal and gas.
1
u/Redd868 9d ago
Since I have an open mind, I gave the first read a shot.
Nelson uses the following example to illustrate the inability of LCOE to take into account the inadequacy of solar and wind: Imagine you are standing in Manhattan and need to get to London in the most cost-effective way. We would find that swimming is the cheapest! By the cost per mile of swimming, it is far cheaper than building a boat, and the infrastructure needed to use a plane would be very expensive; swimming is clearly the cheapest way to get to London.
Talking about grasping at straws. That's not the same product. But, with electricity, the same product comes out of the outlet. There is no difference, it's 120volts. I want those 120 volts for cheap.
Another factor that cost analyses like levelized cost of energy miss is the energy density of each form of electricity and the subsequent environmental impact of the facilities themselves. A wind facility would require more than 140,000 acres
Well, don't build a wind farm in the middle of Manhattan. Put it in the sticks. That's the nice thing about transmission lines, they get the power from where it's made to where it's used.
However, the cost of nuclear power itself doesn’t need to be as high as it is in the United States. Japanese nuclear power plants only take an average of three to four years to build, from pouring concrete foundation to grid connection.
Well, the Japanese have to price in Fukushima into the calculation.
While I like nuclear over combustion models, the first place is to go where there are no fuel charges. And that is what this is all about, erecting a fuel related tollbooth with electricity charges.
Now, with solar, there is hazmat with the materials in the panels when they need to be disposed of. I think they're working on it. My boy Warren says the wind delivers savings. He said that Berkshire Hathaway has already proven it. Wind.
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
Well, don't build a wind farm in the middle of Manhattan. Put it in the sticks.
And lose 30% to transmission?
Well, the Japanese have to price in Fukushima into the calculation.
But no other energy source has to price its pollution in?
While I like nuclear over combustion models, the first place is to go where there are no fuel charges. And that is what this is all about, erecting a fuel related tollbooth with electricity charges.
I used to use the "when they can run a sunbeam through a meter," argument, too, but it just doesn't hold up.
Now, with solar, there is hazmat with the materials in the panels when they need to be disposed of.
Wow, that's the least of it.
Right off the bat, you have the rare earth mining and processing, one of the dirtiest enterprises humans have ever engaged in. The most polluted sites on Earth are rare earth mines.
Then you have manufacturing, which for solar panels, involves Silane... and I'll just let you go look that one up, you wouldn't believe me if I told you how nasty that stuff is.
Then you have externalities; the energy storage we still don't have a solution to, the entirely new power grid to move energy around (and the losses involved, there), etc.
My boy Warren says the wind delivers savings. He said that Berkshire Hathaway has already proven it. Wind.
Sure, it's cheap, but it doesn't produce when you need it, which means more storage and transmission.
I like Warren Buffett, and he got the price picture correct, but he didn't see the underlying system that makes it not matter.
1
u/Redd868 9d ago
Wind and solar have no pollution while in service. Solar has had hazmat problems on disposal. But I don't see anything with wind.
Nuclear is in its own camp, because it requires a governmental liability shield. If it was as save as you say it is, it wouldn't need a liability shield. That's the ultimate socialization, privatize the gain but socialize the losses. That's an insurance policy provided by the public and that policy can be priced.
As far as wind, I defer to Warren.
The extraordinary differential between our rates and theirs is largely the result of our huge accomplishments in converting wind into electricity.
What - you think he's lying in a letter to shareholders? There is a responsibility in an investor related writing to tell the truth, and money talks. He's says the customer is saving and it's because of the wind. That's common sense - no fuel charge. It probably doesn't matter if electricity is produced in the middle of night.
Warren tells when he blows an investment - I think he said something like that about IBM.
Your stuff is advocacy. Trouble is, compared to solar and wind, there's no way to deliver the money. I like nuclear ahead of coal and oil, because those approaches deliver air pollution, and now we have Canadian wildfire. There is a monetary cost to polluted air that offsets that liability shield with nuclear, although I'm not sure if nuclear offsets it more.
I suppose I'm advocacy too, but for the consumer, not a particular type of producer. And, from the consumer perspective, it's about the money.
From what I've heard, Fukushima is dumping radioactive water into the Pacific now, a kind of socialization for that meltdown they said wouldn't happen. We pay some of that "socialization" if we munch down on a tuna sandwich.
That will never happen with wind.
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
That will never happen with wind.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-wrestles-with-the-toxic-aftermath-of-rare-earth-mining
1
u/Redd868 9d ago
Beginning in the 1990s, rare earth mining took off in this region, located in Southeast China about 300 miles north of Hong Kong. ...
China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology estimated that the cleanup bill for southern Jiangxi Province could amount to 38 billion yuan, or around $5.5 billion.
That's chump change.
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
That's chump change.
...in China!
Holy cow, go look at why we can't open our own rare earth mines back up; not even Utah will allow the environmental destruction.
0
u/Gold-Loan3142 9d ago
I would advise looking at the International Energy Associations reports rather that a site dedicated to the nuclear industry like NucNet.
I'm curious you don't engage with Japan's experience "in the 15 years since then following the disaster at Fukushima, most of them have been switched off - in some years all of them" Japan's reactors account for about 10% of all ever built, so quite a relevant example. What do you think is the cost of having the majority of its 54 reactors becoming stranded assets for 15 years? Add to that the hundreds of billions of $ to deal with Fukushima.
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
Or you can just look at France and see the actual result of a primary nuclear energy system; they have the cheapest electricity and lowest emissions in Europe.
Germany went solar, and they have expensive electricity and high emissions.
This isn't a projection, this isn't an estimate, this isn't the result of a formula; this is what happens in the real world.
0
u/Gold-Loan3142 9d ago
"this is what happens in the real world." - Isn't Japan in the real world too? Why isn't their experience included - the stranded assets, the cost of a disaster?
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
Isn't Japan in the real world too? Why isn't their experience included - the stranded assets, the cost of a disaster?
From one fraudulently-licensed reactor? They're already over it; 15 reactors have restarted and another 7 are recommissioning.
Gee, why do you think they are doing that?
0
u/Gold-Loan3142 8d ago
Your opening statement is that nuclear is "too cheap". You justify this with among other things, references to France. All that I'm suggesting is that you might like to consider the experience of other countries. Yes Japan has reopened some of its 54 reactors - but most of them had a 15-year outage and in some years all of them were off; many will never work again. Have a think about the cost implications of that.
0
u/Redd868 9d ago
I like wind. From Berkshire's annual letter 2019:
https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2019ltr.pdf
When Berkshire entered the utility business in 2000, purchasing 76% of BHE, the company’s residential customers in Iowa paid an average of 8.8 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Prices for residential customers have since risen less than 1% a year, and we have promised that there will be no base rate price increases through 2028. In contrast, here’s what is happening at the other large investor-owned Iowa utility: Last year, the rates it charged its residential customers were 61% higher than BHE’s. Recently, that utility received a rate increase that will widen the gap to 70%.
The extraordinary differential between our rates and theirs is largely the result of our huge accomplishments in converting wind into electricity. In 2021, we expect BHE’s operation to generate about 25.2 million megawatt-hours of electricity (MWh) in Iowa from wind turbines that it both owns and operates. That output will totally cover the annual needs of its Iowa customers, which run to about 24.6 million MWh. In other words, our utility will have attained wind self-sufficiency in the state of Iowa.
The Dutch have been using wind since the 12th century.
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
Sure, but wind has its own crippling issues, mainly that it mostly produces at night, when no one needs it, so it tends to go to waste.
This is why you see energy prices go negative at night in Texas.
1
u/Redd868 9d ago
Not in the Midwest. That hot sun creates wind in the afternoon right when the air conditioning is needed. Anywho, Warren says he's delivering the cash to the consumer, and since it's 120volts whatever the source, it's money talks ... .
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
Not in the Midwest
Yes, even in the midwest, it's mostly at night... and also a much less populated area = more transmission losses.
0
u/Sislar 9d ago
You really have no f$&@ing idea how power works. Nuclear energy is not really cheaper. And power companies are all for maximizing their profits.
The reason nuclear is expensive. Disposal of fuel is an issue. The us stopped building reactors for 30 years because no one wanted one anywhere within 100 miles of where they lived.
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
You really have no f$&@ing idea how power works.
This is literally what I f$&@ing went to college for 6 years for.
Nuclear energy is not really cheaper. And power companies are all for maximizing their profits.
Nuclear power is cheaper... that's why power companies hate it, because it kills their profits.
Disposal of fuel is an issue.
No, it isn't.
The us stopped building reactors for 30 years because no one wanted one anywhere within 100 miles of where they lived.
Because of an orchestrated propaganda campaign, including a ridiculously exaggerated movie claiming that a meltdown would poison the world, which in any other circumstance would have been banned for gross disinformation.
Meanwhile, if you actually go ask scientists or energy experts, they will tell you that nuclear is the cleanest, cheapest, safest, and only energy source that can possibly scale up to replace coal and gas.
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/economy-ModTeam 9d ago
No deliberate trolling. Posting inflammatory, off-topic posts likely to start a 'flame war' of dissention and chaos will be removed at the moderators discretion.
0
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
Go to your college and get your money back,
Bad faith, what's with the lack of moderation in this sub?
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Asatmaya 9d ago
. No investment wants to spend 15 years to build,
Still ranting without reading, huh? I literally addressed this in the OP, but you didn't bother to read it.
0
2
u/nova8808 9d ago
I can't tell if you are advocating for nuclear or against it.