Ok, let's find some common ground: we agree current nuclear reactors "could be a lot better". With very finite uranium, coal, and oil deposits on earth these forms of energy generation are only a short-term solution. As an aside, it would also be great to save those energy supplies for a dark and rainy day.
My prediction is based on Econ 101: the cheapest solution will win.
Nuclear reactors (and coal plants) are long-term investment projects with payback over decades. If you're close to the equator, it doesn't even make sense today. And the increasing cost differential between solar and nuclear/coal will mean that zone is expanding towards the poles.
I'm sorry if you're financially or intellectually invested in nuclear, but that's what i think will happen.
My prediction is based on Econ 101: the cheapest solution will win.
Nuclear reactors (and coal plants) are long-term investment projects with payback over decades. If you're close to the equator, it doesn't even make sense today. And the increasing cost differential between solar and nuclear/coal will mean that zone is expanding towards the poles.
I'm sorry if you're financially or intellectually invested in nuclear, but that's what i think will happen.