
 Originally Posted by 
DiscoMick
					 
				 
				
			
		 
	 
 Lots of countries are still building them...  World Nuclear Power Reactors | Uranium Requirements | Future Nuclear Power - World Nuclear Association
The key word above is 'obsolete' as I see it. As many/most of these were built in the 60s and 70s and have a service life of 40 years (with 20 year extension if updated) I think we are seeing a natural lifecycle of old equipment being retired and being replaced with modern equivalents that make sense in the current political and environmental landscape.  "Nuclear" is still a dirty word and there is a lot of pressure to close down existing ones and not build new just due to that alone.  You don't get votes for building a nuclear anything, but bung in a wind farm or a few hectares of solar and you are in with a chance.  Equally, once built, our access to the required raw materials to fee it are second to none so running costs aren't directly comparable with other countries.  if governments actually just did things that genuinely made sense there would be much cleverer decisions being made.  But instead they are looking at the next election and how they'll get up.
				
			 
			
		 
			
				
			
			
				DiscoClax
'94 D1 3dr Aegean Blue - 300ci stroker RV8, 4HP24 & Compushift, usual bar-work, various APT gear, 235/85 M/Ts, 3deg arms, Detroit lockers, $$$$, etc.
'08 RRS TDV8 Rimini Red - 285/60R18 Falken AT3Ws, Rock slider-steps, APT full under-protection, Mitch Hitch, Tradesman rack, Traxide DBS, Gap IID 
			
			
		 
	
Bookmarks