/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12483842
not even remotely environmentalist, but nuclear is dead. it's just a waste of time, effort and money,

nobody is building this shit, for good reason

>>12092317
this is nonsense, investors invest, not countries
and for some years investors invest in
solar, wind and natural gas only simply because this is most profitable

Actually cheap gas (fracking) and wind/ solar killed coal and nuclear. It's cheaper, faster to build and much more popular,

>>11860859
Sorry but we are not in the 1950's any more, atomic power is outdated and not competitive.
Most existing plants are very old. Many will retire in the next years. Building new plants takes decades and costs billions. This does not happen because building the same capacity with wind, solar or gas is much cheaper and much faster. And investors love to earn money back fast. Nations with atomic bombs like France and UK will keep one or two reactors because they have to. But that's it.

>>11783773
investing in wind and solar is just much smarter, renewable projects are finished in 2-3 years and earn back money, getting permissions and building nuclear can take decades, now even the few remaining projects are stopped because there is not much need for new plants in an shrinking economy

>>11463052
Go away socialist shill. Nuclear is dead because capitalism killed it. Everything else is cheaper and faster to build.