/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15264428

Nuclear "power" is dead. There will be a few smaller reactors for scientific and military purposes. Also some to produce special isotopes for medicine and nuclear batteries in deep space probes.
But that's it.

>>12112869
Planning a nuclear plant and getting permissions takes at least a decade. Building a nuclear plant takes another decade. It will cost you at least $10 billion, probably even more. Your project might be stopped or delayed if there is a nuclear accident or just a different administration.
Building solar, wind or natural gas got none of these problems. There are just 3 years from idea to finished plant.

>>11785240
actually it's 6-8 month in a sunny region, but even your number would be much better then nuclear because these projects tend to be cancelled and all your money is lost

>>11712866
wind and solar are just a better investment, you just need cheap land and connect to the power grid, getting permissions is quite easy. you start earning money back in a few years. guaranteed, more and more companies and consumers want green energy so you are on the safe side

nuclear is risky, you spend at least a decade getting permissions and another decade to actually build your plant, politics can change, some old run down nuclear plant may blow up in the muddle of construction and as a side effect your much better and safer plant might never go online

>>11112315
>Meltdowns don’t happen in modern plants
Maybe because there are no modern plants. Everybody stopped building nuclear plants after Chernobyl.
Also making plants safer raised costs. Now nobody can afford to build a new plant.