>>14140677Literally everything said there is wrong, god damn.
Run out of uranium in 20 years? Nuclear power has been providing a 5th of the power for 60 years, and it's nowhere near exhausted. 200 years, maybe - but that's assuming nobody builds thorium reactors, extracts uranium from the deep ocean (which in no way costs more energy than it produces, it costs as much as a desalination plant at worst) or even builds breeder reactors, which do produce plenty of power on their own. Hell there's a twenty year old that built one in his parents' shed.
Nuclear power plants have been in service for decades (and will have to stay longer because there are few new power plants), and are made expensive by convoluted regulations, not technical limitations - hell the 2000° C core of a modern jet engine is far more agressive than a 400° nuclear core in terms of materials.
Like
>>14139060 said, it's the "green" parties that reject nuclear the strongest because they are interested in condicioning people, not progress.
But i will say that the major promblem of nuclear power is trust. It's a solution that requirss people to trust others with something that can be incredibly dangerous, and that trust is too easily lost compared to how difficult it is to build.
