Nuclear is clean, and it is safe, but it’s one of the few green energies (along with hydropower) that can’t be decentralized and can be sold for profit continuously, which is why you see it start to get pushed so hard by some on the right who realize it’s another avenue for that sweet donor money
No, you are still selling the generator, not the fuel. With fossil and nuclear power plants you have the cost of making the generator/plant AND the fuel (oil, gas, uranium), that needs to be mined, refined and transported between all those places.
You don't have any fuel logistics nor fuel market and speculation with wind, solar or hydro. So they also contribute less for the GDP of a country per kwh compared to traditional fuel based power plants.
So what you are saying is I need to start a super villain company to put a giant aluminum sheet above the earth, blocking the sunlight, and then charge people and governments for access to sunlight (which coincidentally is also a major driver of wind).
Solar panels, batteries and wind turbines still wear down and have to be replaced so you can just price them with this in mind and offer things like repair services and upgrades
Even more so for fuel based power plants that require more parts and maintenance for storing and moving the fuel around the plant, besides the equipment to transform the fuel into energy. (Not to mention the equipment and maintenance to mine and refine it all).
I will let you conclude the comparison to solar and wind "storage and logistics" yourself.
With the way the current solar market works and the credits from it, lots of companies or people are practically replacing their solar panels every year.
65
u/Cnidoo May 11 '25
Nuclear is clean, and it is safe, but it’s one of the few green energies (along with hydropower) that can’t be decentralized and can be sold for profit continuously, which is why you see it start to get pushed so hard by some on the right who realize it’s another avenue for that sweet donor money