/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12063572
nuclear got more subsidies then anything else, it's still not competitive,
Building a nuclear plant takes decades and costs billions. Only communist big government is willing to do this.

>>11408813
banning is not even necessary, almost no new plant has been build for decades, many plants will retire within the next decades
nuclear is not competitive anyway so there is no reason to stick with it

>>11325216
stick with medicine, this will be needed forever, while atomic power got no future

>>11281723
It's still in use, but it's just not profitable any more and we are running out of uranium. So most plants will be shout down over the next decades. If nobody comes up with a cleaver idea to make atomic reactors much safer, much cheaper and much faster to build atomic energy is dead

>>11060808
Nice try, but nuclear power got no future. During the last decades only a few plants have been build. Many plants are in retirement age or will be within the next 20 years. Almost no plants are even planned. Planning and building nuclear plants takes decades. No investor is willing to wait this long.

Every other kind of power plant can be build much faster. Even large hydro.