Isn’t nuclear more stable and efficient than solar?
Why is it not regarded as a solution
Why is it not regarded as a solution
Even if public perception weren't an obstacle, and even if you didn't have to deal with waste storage, and even if building nuclear plants wasn't a glacially slow process, it just doesn't make economic sense to focus on nuclear anymore.
As an example, consider the new Olkiluoto-3 nuclear plant built in Finland. That reactor was commission just a few months ago, but its build was 12 years behind schedule. The delay to that project saw the original 3 billion Euro price tag more than triple with a final cost closer to 11 billion.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-05/zaporizhzhia-nuclear-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/08/japan-fukush...
Take example of Germany where they shut down the nuclear power plants just cos of popular pressure…
This was done due to environmental factors, not as a financial instrument.
> and are scared of nuclear.
That part is definitely true. After seeing that even a high-tech nation like Japan couldn't keep their nuclear reactors safe, nuclear was no longer seen as a viable option.
This is utter nonsense. The reason wind and solar are being pushed is they are so much cheaper than nuclear (and this will remain true even at high renewable uptake when storage is required). This is widely understood; where did you get the bizarre incorrect belief that it was otherwise?
Nuclear was so out of the running in the US that many existing NPPs had to be shut down because they were cash flow negative. It wasn't worth running them even with the construction and financing costs completely written off. The remaining reactor at Three Mile Island, for example, had not made an operating profit for six years before it was shut down.
Nuclear weapons exist after all…