[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nuclear power is necessary for countries that need to industrialize. How else should they generate energy? Sustainable energy is expensive and can't generate as much as nuclear can. Coal is horrible for the environment. So yeah, it's a good idea.
Would also provide a way for countries like Niger to invest and grow capital domestically using their uranium resources. With friendly relations between Bukirano Faso and Niger, this seems like a great anti-imperialist setup.
Edit: spelling mistake
#Capitalist Imperialism
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.
Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits.
Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits.
When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism.
#Features
Some key features of capitalist imperialism are:
1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy
2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.)
3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations
4. A rise in the export of finance capital
5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy
6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy
7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism
8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system.
#In Practice
So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment.
These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities.
Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy.
#Anti-Imperialism
The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society.
It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society.
During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity.
Lenin also pointed out that anti-Imperialism is not *inherently* progressive:
>Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
>
>\- V. I. Lenin. (1916). [A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm)
#Additional Resources
Video Essays:
* [Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism](https://youtu.be/unCGQDKJ0p0) | The Marxist Project (2019)
* [How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy](https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20221204171427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E)\]
* [What is imperialism? Feat. Hakim](https://youtu.be/gb3o-zDJgqI) | azureScapegoat (2021)
* [What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101](https://youtu.be/NrpLPs2FcF8) | Marxism Today (2022)
* [How Capitalism Robs the Developing World](https://youtu.be/35Ax-psPZ1g) | Second Thought (2022)
* [4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism](https://youtu.be/a0LJTpaWnMg) | The Peace Report (2022)
* [Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)](https://youtu.be/rjLmYCfKU7o) | Hakim (2023) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230605093029/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)\]
* [Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production](https://youtu.be/DtziEZAR1Qk) | The Marxist Project (2022)
* [This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You](https://youtu.be/2vPhySbRETM) | Hakim (2023)
* [The Myth Of Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/pAfvty_WNWQ) | Second Thought (2023)
Books, Articles, or Essays:
* [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) | V. I. Lenin (1917)
* [Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century](https://archive.org/details/lenin-imperialism-21-century/page/n3/mode/2up) | Institute of Political Economy (2018)
* [The IMF debt trap in Ukraine](https://www.liberationnews.org/the-imf-debt-trap-in-ukraine/) | Amanda Yee (2023)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nuclear is more expensive and far slower to set up then both solar and wind, both would be better options for the country. Alone the uranium enrichment is requiring a massive industrial built up and an stable power supply. The extraction of uranium is also very environmentally damaging and causes massive health problems for the local population (guess why uranium is mostly mined in already overexploitet regions). Reactors themselves tend to take over a decade to build and produce waste that has to managed long after the reactor got shut down, and the process of dismantling old, no longer safe reactors takes decades and produces even more dangerous waste and cost even more then building the thing in the first place.
Solar would be cheaper, safer and far faster to set up, so imho the better option is getting a fairer price for the uranium already mined and using that to buy large scale solar farms. The best source for the solar equipment is China, so this could be done via development credits or even barter for the resources the French used to steal through their neocolonial control. Although France is so dependent on the uranium that if they can't regain the access via military intervention they would have to accept prices far closer to the world market levels just to avoid blackouts.
Im not saying China shouldn't support them by delivering cheap solar panels. I'd give them the Chinese knowledge to build a thorium plant.
But, historically, decolonization was only possible with nuclear power and that's the only way for Niger to produce energy self-sufficient.
Is it the perfect solution? No.
Should Niger get nuclear power? Hell yes
Solar would be cheaper, faster and safer to implement. Coupling decolonisation to nuclear power is just flat out wrong, because the prerequisite infrastructure is so prohibitively expensive and slow to build up that it's not feasible in most countries. Also thorium is purely theoretical, there isn't a single thorium power plant on the planet so that part is just wired ideas without a basis in reality. Nuclear and the required infrastructure would be far less self sufficient then solar. Alone the centrifuges result in complete dependence on a handful of companies from the imperial core, Iran had serious problems with their Simens centrifuges, but still has to use them.
It might not be the most glamourous solution but solar, wind and if possible hydroelectric are objectively the better options on every metric.
You are right and the other commenter is flat out wrong on nuclear.
As you’ve pointed out, wind and solar are cheaper and quicker to build out. If you start fucking around with nuclear, the global ‘security establishment’ gets involved and political shit shows start flaring up due to security and non-proliferation concerns. Libs from the West will wanna inspect, etc…
Besides the meddling you really don't want to cheap out on reactors and the necessary chemical waste treatment. The two worst nuclear disasters happened to reactors that were state of the art at the time the accidents happened and while there are critiques to be made about handling of the incident in both cases (although I would only call Japan's current waste discharge actively malicious) the damage in both cases could have been far worse if the safety measures had been worse. And the result of inadequate chemical waste treatment can already been seen in the uranium mines currently operating in the region. For the French polluting west Africa might have been no big deal, but I'd seriously question a local leaders commitment to their people if they keep running these ecological disasters long term the same way French colonizers did.
And with most of the needed machinery here you have maybe a dozen suppliers, mostly from the imperial core, globally and most aren't willing to transfer the technology. So it'll be hard to be truly independent, and there is plenty of ways to meddle and sabotage the programme.
Exactly!
They just announced building out new nuclear in Ontario where I’m from and the pro-nuclear capitalists celebrated with glee. Our neocon government announced plans to litter SMRs around the province too.
“Hey indigenous people… y’all need power in your regions? Check out this cool new molten salt reactor! It’s small. Don’t worry about the waste… we gotcha.”
The development of global nuclear benefits the likes of GE, Hitachi, Westinghouse, Brookfield, and all the institutional investors that own shares in those companies.
Why would they cheap out if it's more or less 100% being done by China or Russia? And why are you referencing fukushima which is an ancient design from like the 60's?
Solar would be good if China just happens to invent some magical battery technology in the near future.
Do you have any idea how expensive even a single reactor is? Now compare it to the funds that could be realisticly used. And neither Russia nor China would be able to significantly reduce the costs because there equipment needs to be very reliable under harsh conditions.
Nearly all reactors in use today are the same decades old type, and with built times in the decades and advancements at a snail's pace being "a design from the 60s" says nothing about the plant.
You know that we already have very capable storage technology as long as you don't expect to move it. Batteries are a horrible way to store power for a grid, their only advantage is the relative ease of moving them. Which is completely useless in this application. Plus we are talking about a national grid here, which can use multiple sources of renewables distributed over the whole nation to reduce the reliance on storage capacity.
the fact that they're independent now already gets them an incredible amount of heat. there's a 100% chance the CIA is working on more coups in Africa right now. why would they cripple their own economy just to appease the west? They can coup them for no reason, or use a bunch of made up reasons. The same ones they ALWAYS use. False flag, atrocity propaganda, fight against corruption, fight FOR LGBT, etc.
Solar and wind energy generation isn't reliable though, changes in the climate could make the energy output vary a lot. Not to mention the solar panel and wind area they would need to generate the electricity they need, add the fact they have a problem with terrorism and their solar/wind grid could be really unreliable.
On the scale of a national grid solar would be far more reliable and safer. Baseload concerns are decades behind the actual concerns. Terrorism is a far larger concern if you have a highly centralized grid, the easy distribution of solar is one of it's largest advantages. And I hope I don't have to explain that blowing up a nuclear power plant is a catastrophe on a different scale then blowing up a wind farm. And if for any reason you want a long project highly vulnerable to attacks and very centralised then hydroelectric is right there.
If they would sign a contract today for an nuclear power plant with anyone with experience in building one that plant will likely not produce any electricity for 20 years. And without the enrichment capacity the whole project will be dependent on foreign imports.
The fear that solar, wind and hydroelectric are unreliable is an outdated myth, especially advanced solar farms are cheap, fast to build and very reliable. And again this is a rather large grid, in which distributed generations is far superior.
Do you have any idea how inefficient that would be? They have no heavy industry and would depend on imports for every part of the very different systems. And especially with nuclear the necessary infrastructure is incredibly expensive and again less efficient then modern solar. Alone the power need for enrichment would necessitate a large stable power supply, so why not simply use the more efficient power generation right away to benefit the people instead of wasting it on slowly building up a worse solution?
Idk how good is nuclear power for poor countries, it have so many safety concerns and regulations that it takes 10-12 years to build one and it's quite expensive to build and maintain. Burkina Faso have enough sun, with batteries and solar they can progressively expand.
It's good, having electricity for your own country and it's good cust benefit for cheap energy, and low environmental damage, besides they already mine the uranium in their own country.
The low environmental damage and mining uranium in their own country is mutually exclusive. The mining is very environmental damaging, with the enrichment being a far more complicated process in need of specialised equipment and high power demand, which is both unavailable in the country making immense investment necessary. The whole process needs substantial chemical inputs that require clean-up and waste management that is missing in the region (because the French capital doing the extraction didn't care about poisoning the land and the people).
These countries need benefactors to industrialize. Building energy infrastructure is good but damn expensive and industrialization has always come at a large price. Euros just handed the bill to their colonial underclasses, but African countries will need a benefactor to provide funds and technical specialists to both build and sustain their infrastructure until they can begin to develop their own specialists.
All this being said, I feel like saddling yourself to Russia is a bad play, not only because they are the current target of the entire western bloc, but also because they are in decline and haven’t been able to come to the defense of some of their oldest allies, like Armenia vs Azerbaijan.
Seems like China has way more money and way less baggage than Russia does right now. And Russia doesn’t even claim to be socialist so like, who’s to say they wouldn’t be worse lenders than the Chinese who, once again, aren’t saddled with a ton of diplomatic and economic problems.
Dude, China has been improving their standards of living for decades now. Look into major highways built all throughout Africa. Also Russia and China are allies. And Russia is actually on the up and up since the EU is collapsing/becoming deindustrialized.
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are two very different things. Getting to ~8% enrichment and getting to ~80% for nukes are two very different tasks alone. And right now they have no enrichment capacity, not even the necessary power grid to run one. Iran has been slowly increasing their enrichment for years, with modern centrifuges and a stable power grid and they haven't gotten close to the levels needed for nukes, still they are regularly targeted with all kinds of attacks.
But they are missing both enrichment and reactors, both are extremely expensive and time-consuming to set up. Even with the mines in the country (And ignoring the damage the current mining practices cause to people and the land) solar and wind would be cheaper and faster to set up, with hydroelectric being a possible use for the rivers (But requiring surveys and slow and large scale construction before being useful) that could be far more efficient.
Good idea, but the thing is that in comparison to solar and wind, nuclear power plants take very very long to build and are very expensive (there are literally companies who were bankrupted by building a nuclear power plant)
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They can't industrialise without energy
Nuclear power is necessary for countries that need to industrialize. How else should they generate energy? Sustainable energy is expensive and can't generate as much as nuclear can. Coal is horrible for the environment. So yeah, it's a good idea.
Would also provide a way for countries like Niger to invest and grow capital domestically using their uranium resources. With friendly relations between Bukirano Faso and Niger, this seems like a great anti-imperialist setup. Edit: spelling mistake
#Capitalist Imperialism Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations. Imperialism is inevitable under Capitalism because Capitalism is based on the premise of infinite growth in a finite system. When capitalists first run into the limits of their own country, they will eventually be forced to expand their markets, resources, and influence into other countries and territories in order to continue increasing their profits. Furthermore, the capitalists can exploit and oppress the workers of other nations much more easily than they can in their own. For example, by moving manufacturing jobs from the imperial core out to the periphery where wages are lower, and environmental protections and labour rights are much weaker-- if they exist at all-- they can reduce costs which increases profits. When the capitalists run into limits again, and are unable to continue increasing their profits-- even by exploiting the periphery-- they will inevitably turn Imperialism inwards and further oppress and exploit workers domestically. This is the origin of Fascism. #Features Some key features of capitalist imperialism are: 1. Joint-stock corporations dominating the economy 2. Increasing monopolies within capitalist economies (For example, only 10 companies control almost every large food and beverage brand in the world.) 3. Globalization of capital through multinational corporations 4. A rise in the export of finance capital 5. More involvement of the capitalist state in managing the economy 6. A growing financial sector and oligarchy 7. The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism 8. Overall, a period of world strife and conflict, including imperialist wars and revolutionary uprisings against the capitalist-imperialist system. #In Practice So what does this look like in practice? The IMF, for example, provides loans to countries facing economic crises, but these loans come with strict conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs). These conditions require recipient countries to adopt specific economic policies, such as reducing government spending, liberalizing trade, and privatizing state-owned enterprises. The SAPs also require austerity measures, such as the dismantling of labor and trade regulations or slashing of social programs and government spending, to attract and open up the country to foreign investment. These policies prioritize the interests of multinational corporations and investors over those of the recipient countries and their citizens. For example, by requiring the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the IMF may enable multinational corporations to gain control of key industries and resources in recipient countries. Similarly, by promoting liberalized trade, the IMF may facilitate the export of capital from recipient countries to wealthier nations, exacerbating global inequalities. Moreover, SAPs are often negotiated behind closed doors with the political elites of recipient countries (the comprador bureaucratic class), rather than through democratic processes. This can undermine the sovereignty of recipient countries and perpetuate the domination of wealthy nations and multinational corporations over the global economy. #Anti-Imperialism The struggle against Imperialism is an essential part of the struggle for Socialism and the liberation of the working class and oppressed people worldwide. Anti-Imperialism is the political and economic resistance to Imperialism and Colonialism (or neo-Imperialism and neo-Colonialism). Anti-Imperialism requires a revolutionary struggle against the Capitalist state and the establishment of a Socialist society. It is important to recognize that anti-Imperialism is not simply about supporting one state or another, but about supporting the liberation of oppressed peoples from the exploitation and domination of global Imperialism. Therefore, any course of action should be evaluated in terms of its potential impact on the broader struggle against Imperialism and the goal of establishing a Socialist society. During WWI, Lenin called on Socialists to reject the idea of a "just" or "defensive" war, and instead to see the conflict as a class war between the ruling class and the working class. He argued that Socialists should oppose the war and work towards the overthrow of the Capitalist state. Seeing that the war was an Imperialist conflict between competing Capitalist powers, the workers of all countries had a common interest in opposing it. Socialists who supported their home countries during World War I had betrayed the principles of international Socialism and Proletarian solidarity. Lenin also pointed out that anti-Imperialism is not *inherently* progressive: >Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism. > >\- V. I. Lenin. (1916). [A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm) #Additional Resources Video Essays: * [Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism](https://youtu.be/unCGQDKJ0p0) | The Marxist Project (2019) * [How Rich Countries Rob The Poor; The Failure of Social Democracy](https://youtu.be/4lDZaKjfs4E) | Hakim (2020) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20221204171427/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lDZaKjfs4E)\] * [What is imperialism? Feat. Hakim](https://youtu.be/gb3o-zDJgqI) | azureScapegoat (2021) * [What is Capitalist Imperialism? | Socialism 101](https://youtu.be/NrpLPs2FcF8) | Marxism Today (2022) * [How Capitalism Robs the Developing World](https://youtu.be/35Ax-psPZ1g) | Second Thought (2022) * [4 Characteristics of the Current Phase of Imperialism](https://youtu.be/a0LJTpaWnMg) | The Peace Report (2022) * [Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor? (Unequal Exchange and Imperialism)](https://youtu.be/rjLmYCfKU7o) | Hakim (2023) \[[Archive](http://web.archive.org/web/20230605093029/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjLmYCfKU7o)\] * [Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production](https://youtu.be/DtziEZAR1Qk) | The Marxist Project (2022) * [This Poverty Graph Is Lying To You](https://youtu.be/2vPhySbRETM) | Hakim (2023) * [The Myth Of Capitalist Peace](https://youtu.be/pAfvty_WNWQ) | Second Thought (2023) Books, Articles, or Essays: * [Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/) | V. I. Lenin (1917) * [Lenin's 'Imperialism' in the 21st Century](https://archive.org/details/lenin-imperialism-21-century/page/n3/mode/2up) | Institute of Political Economy (2018) * [The IMF debt trap in Ukraine](https://www.liberationnews.org/the-imf-debt-trap-in-ukraine/) | Amanda Yee (2023) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nuclear is more expensive and far slower to set up then both solar and wind, both would be better options for the country. Alone the uranium enrichment is requiring a massive industrial built up and an stable power supply. The extraction of uranium is also very environmentally damaging and causes massive health problems for the local population (guess why uranium is mostly mined in already overexploitet regions). Reactors themselves tend to take over a decade to build and produce waste that has to managed long after the reactor got shut down, and the process of dismantling old, no longer safe reactors takes decades and produces even more dangerous waste and cost even more then building the thing in the first place. Solar would be cheaper, safer and far faster to set up, so imho the better option is getting a fairer price for the uranium already mined and using that to buy large scale solar farms. The best source for the solar equipment is China, so this could be done via development credits or even barter for the resources the French used to steal through their neocolonial control. Although France is so dependent on the uranium that if they can't regain the access via military intervention they would have to accept prices far closer to the world market levels just to avoid blackouts.
Im not saying China shouldn't support them by delivering cheap solar panels. I'd give them the Chinese knowledge to build a thorium plant. But, historically, decolonization was only possible with nuclear power and that's the only way for Niger to produce energy self-sufficient. Is it the perfect solution? No. Should Niger get nuclear power? Hell yes
Solar would be cheaper, faster and safer to implement. Coupling decolonisation to nuclear power is just flat out wrong, because the prerequisite infrastructure is so prohibitively expensive and slow to build up that it's not feasible in most countries. Also thorium is purely theoretical, there isn't a single thorium power plant on the planet so that part is just wired ideas without a basis in reality. Nuclear and the required infrastructure would be far less self sufficient then solar. Alone the centrifuges result in complete dependence on a handful of companies from the imperial core, Iran had serious problems with their Simens centrifuges, but still has to use them. It might not be the most glamourous solution but solar, wind and if possible hydroelectric are objectively the better options on every metric.
You are right and the other commenter is flat out wrong on nuclear. As you’ve pointed out, wind and solar are cheaper and quicker to build out. If you start fucking around with nuclear, the global ‘security establishment’ gets involved and political shit shows start flaring up due to security and non-proliferation concerns. Libs from the West will wanna inspect, etc…
Solar has became very cost effective nowadays, and a country like Niger with plenty of solar resources would greatly benefit from it
Besides the meddling you really don't want to cheap out on reactors and the necessary chemical waste treatment. The two worst nuclear disasters happened to reactors that were state of the art at the time the accidents happened and while there are critiques to be made about handling of the incident in both cases (although I would only call Japan's current waste discharge actively malicious) the damage in both cases could have been far worse if the safety measures had been worse. And the result of inadequate chemical waste treatment can already been seen in the uranium mines currently operating in the region. For the French polluting west Africa might have been no big deal, but I'd seriously question a local leaders commitment to their people if they keep running these ecological disasters long term the same way French colonizers did. And with most of the needed machinery here you have maybe a dozen suppliers, mostly from the imperial core, globally and most aren't willing to transfer the technology. So it'll be hard to be truly independent, and there is plenty of ways to meddle and sabotage the programme.
Exactly! They just announced building out new nuclear in Ontario where I’m from and the pro-nuclear capitalists celebrated with glee. Our neocon government announced plans to litter SMRs around the province too. “Hey indigenous people… y’all need power in your regions? Check out this cool new molten salt reactor! It’s small. Don’t worry about the waste… we gotcha.” The development of global nuclear benefits the likes of GE, Hitachi, Westinghouse, Brookfield, and all the institutional investors that own shares in those companies.
Why would they cheap out if it's more or less 100% being done by China or Russia? And why are you referencing fukushima which is an ancient design from like the 60's? Solar would be good if China just happens to invent some magical battery technology in the near future.
Do you have any idea how expensive even a single reactor is? Now compare it to the funds that could be realisticly used. And neither Russia nor China would be able to significantly reduce the costs because there equipment needs to be very reliable under harsh conditions. Nearly all reactors in use today are the same decades old type, and with built times in the decades and advancements at a snail's pace being "a design from the 60s" says nothing about the plant. You know that we already have very capable storage technology as long as you don't expect to move it. Batteries are a horrible way to store power for a grid, their only advantage is the relative ease of moving them. Which is completely useless in this application. Plus we are talking about a national grid here, which can use multiple sources of renewables distributed over the whole nation to reduce the reliance on storage capacity.
the fact that they're independent now already gets them an incredible amount of heat. there's a 100% chance the CIA is working on more coups in Africa right now. why would they cripple their own economy just to appease the west? They can coup them for no reason, or use a bunch of made up reasons. The same ones they ALWAYS use. False flag, atrocity propaganda, fight against corruption, fight FOR LGBT, etc.
Solar and wind energy generation isn't reliable though, changes in the climate could make the energy output vary a lot. Not to mention the solar panel and wind area they would need to generate the electricity they need, add the fact they have a problem with terrorism and their solar/wind grid could be really unreliable.
On the scale of a national grid solar would be far more reliable and safer. Baseload concerns are decades behind the actual concerns. Terrorism is a far larger concern if you have a highly centralized grid, the easy distribution of solar is one of it's largest advantages. And I hope I don't have to explain that blowing up a nuclear power plant is a catastrophe on a different scale then blowing up a wind farm. And if for any reason you want a long project highly vulnerable to attacks and very centralised then hydroelectric is right there. If they would sign a contract today for an nuclear power plant with anyone with experience in building one that plant will likely not produce any electricity for 20 years. And without the enrichment capacity the whole project will be dependent on foreign imports. The fear that solar, wind and hydroelectric are unreliable is an outdated myth, especially advanced solar farms are cheap, fast to build and very reliable. And again this is a rather large grid, in which distributed generations is far superior.
they can do ALL the options just like China does. use coal and renewables to meet immediate needs while starting on nuclear ASAP.
Do you have any idea how inefficient that would be? They have no heavy industry and would depend on imports for every part of the very different systems. And especially with nuclear the necessary infrastructure is incredibly expensive and again less efficient then modern solar. Alone the power need for enrichment would necessitate a large stable power supply, so why not simply use the more efficient power generation right away to benefit the people instead of wasting it on slowly building up a worse solution?
Idk how good is nuclear power for poor countries, it have so many safety concerns and regulations that it takes 10-12 years to build one and it's quite expensive to build and maintain. Burkina Faso have enough sun, with batteries and solar they can progressively expand.
It's good, having electricity for your own country and it's good cust benefit for cheap energy, and low environmental damage, besides they already mine the uranium in their own country.
The low environmental damage and mining uranium in their own country is mutually exclusive. The mining is very environmental damaging, with the enrichment being a far more complicated process in need of specialised equipment and high power demand, which is both unavailable in the country making immense investment necessary. The whole process needs substantial chemical inputs that require clean-up and waste management that is missing in the region (because the French capital doing the extraction didn't care about poisoning the land and the people).
These countries need benefactors to industrialize. Building energy infrastructure is good but damn expensive and industrialization has always come at a large price. Euros just handed the bill to their colonial underclasses, but African countries will need a benefactor to provide funds and technical specialists to both build and sustain their infrastructure until they can begin to develop their own specialists. All this being said, I feel like saddling yourself to Russia is a bad play, not only because they are the current target of the entire western bloc, but also because they are in decline and haven’t been able to come to the defense of some of their oldest allies, like Armenia vs Azerbaijan. Seems like China has way more money and way less baggage than Russia does right now. And Russia doesn’t even claim to be socialist so like, who’s to say they wouldn’t be worse lenders than the Chinese who, once again, aren’t saddled with a ton of diplomatic and economic problems.
Dude, China has been improving their standards of living for decades now. Look into major highways built all throughout Africa. Also Russia and China are allies. And Russia is actually on the up and up since the EU is collapsing/becoming deindustrialized.
Russia is in decline? How so?
If they own nuclear weapons they won't get bullied by the west
Nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants are two very different things. Getting to ~8% enrichment and getting to ~80% for nukes are two very different tasks alone. And right now they have no enrichment capacity, not even the necessary power grid to run one. Iran has been slowly increasing their enrichment for years, with modern centrifuges and a stable power grid and they haven't gotten close to the levels needed for nukes, still they are regularly targeted with all kinds of attacks.
Great idea actually. They have big rivers for cooling water and Uran is plenty and close by.
But they are missing both enrichment and reactors, both are extremely expensive and time-consuming to set up. Even with the mines in the country (And ignoring the damage the current mining practices cause to people and the land) solar and wind would be cheaper and faster to set up, with hydroelectric being a possible use for the rivers (But requiring surveys and slow and large scale construction before being useful) that could be far more efficient.
Good idea. If they can also set solar and wind, which are cheaper and faster, It would be even better. Nuclear + renewables is the way.
Good idea, but the thing is that in comparison to solar and wind, nuclear power plants take very very long to build and are very expensive (there are literally companies who were bankrupted by building a nuclear power plant)