the marketplace for energy. Nuclear has had its try and it was not able to displace fossil fuel. Solar can and is. Putting more money into nuclear is backing a dead horse.

Nuclear energy mostly didn't get a real try. If we had made less over all safety laws around it, it would likely eclipse Fossil fuel generation already. Nuclear energy has also had a bunch of recent advances. These plants don't solve the same problems. Nuclear has many advantages in some places.

Right , with modern designs, nuclear is safer, cleaner, and more advanced than ever. That’s why it keeps proving its value.

But you pointed out that nuclear did get a real try in China, and even there it's growing much slower than solar or wind. None of nuclear's advantages matter almost everywhere. The reality is the nuclear is a dead end technology and eventually every country that tries it gives up on it.

France is going relatively strong. Many many countries have never given nuclear a try because of non-proliferation policies in many places outside the west. Without the threat of nuclear weapons being created in new reactors this isn't a problem.

Not really: independentaustralia.net/politics/pol...

Calling nuclear “dead” ignores reality. It’s expanding worldwide, while grids with only wind and solar are already struggling.

it's mostly cuz nuclear energy would fucking trounce everything else we have and the people running things would lose a lotta money from such an improvement lmao