/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12648543
did you not get the notice a few years ago?

>>12264327
All other energy technologies are cheaper and much faster to build. Also there is no need in saturated energy markets of western nations.

>>12054271
who cares? it's dead economically and not popular

>>12004347
You can repeat your nonsense as much as you like, but why? Investors spend money on wind and solar for years. Because it's cheap, fast to build and profitable. wake up

>>11789330

>>11709526
nuclear is dead because it's expensive and takes decades to get permissions and to build this shit

>>11369259
>Is this as polluting as everyone says?
It's worse! People near coal plants get sick and die early.
Phasing out late is not smart for another reason. Coal becomes less and less competitive as energy source. Natural gas, wind and solar are already cheaper and getting even cheaper every year.

>>11232403
that's not true, not at all

>>11152985
recently raising costs made it more expensive then anything else

>>11098361
It's the economy. Nuclear is more expensive then anything else and building nuclear plants takes decades. Natural gas, wind and solar is much cheaper and can be build much faster.

>>11061034
That's why solar wins. It becomes cheaper every year. Nuclear is already expensive and becomes even more expensive.

>>11032965
Coal and nuclear is over. Its expensive. It's not viable. Only wind, solar and natural gas is competitive. Simple as that.

>>11013464
>nuclear power
is very expensive and just not viable

>>11002250
yes, but a carbon tax could make coal and gas more expensive and save nuclear power