17
I mean im guessing its because it may not be as profitable, or atleast at first, boycotts or directly just capitalism fucking everything up? i legit always imagine aliens seeing us still use coal while having DISCOVERED IN 1932
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2025
17 points (62.7% liked)
Green Energy
3040 readers
79 users here now
Everything about energy production and storage.
Related communities:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Full disclosure: I am not from the industry
Yes, fear mongering is a factor. If you are a political power that opposes the nuclear, you can win a couple of points.
Dependency on a major player. You can't just build a nuclear plant as a country. It's a multinational project and even countries like Turkey rely on countries like Russia for building a plant. The choice is not that wide also: France, China, Russia, or the US.
Then, you need to buy fuel from these players. There are a couple of examples where the plants were partially rebuilt to work on fuel from another country, but the drive was always political AFAIK: Ukraine and Finland made themselves independent of Russia's nuclear supply.
It's a long project with sky-high investment at the start and zero to no profit. It should be politically motivated. Like even in Russia I know of 2.5 newly built nuclear plants since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Others were upgrades of existing plants which require less money. But Russia builds nuclear in Turkey, Egypt, and Bangladesh.
To point 2. South Korea can be added tot the list.
TIL.
Man, they have a broad nuclear program. Such a tiny country covered with rice fields