>>14316101Not OP but the answer is a) politics and b) greed
On the first point, the kike-sponsored "green" parties are mostly stark raving mad and treat nuclear like the devil, they literally prefer coal over nuclear. So "environmentalist" pressure is against nuclear, and so in most countries expanding nuclear carries a political stigma of "uhh you're against the environment!" while restricting it gives free political brownie points of "hooray our brave politicians are putting the environment first!".
On the second one, a nuclear plant is cheap as balls to run but requires a huge upfront investment. In both money and time mind you - you have to pay billions and then wait like a decade until you see ANY income. Meanwhile something like a coal plant is reasonably cheap to build and you can almost immediately start raking in profits. So even if in the long term nuclear is definitely cheaper, many businesses don't care for the risk. Oh and in terms of government funding this goes back to politics too, nobody in the government cares to fund a project that will only be completed in a decade, meanwhile if you cut it you just freed up a couple billion for your own budget and the only negative effects will come years down the line long after you're no longer responsible for any of it.
Also the opposite pressure works in favour of government spending for renewables. Even if it's shitty, non-profitable or downright scammy, it gives great political benefit to send some cash, because it's "environmentally friendly", and you also get to see returns immediately (even if there's no actual profit lmao, it's still useful to see some gross income). So they'd rather pump a billion into solar panels which will have a negative net return and will be out of service in a decade, than pump ten billions into a nuclear plant which will give no returns for a decade but will start giving ultra-cheap electricity from then on.
