Nuclear plants are useful, for one.
reply> It is now economically non-viable.
Nuclear is about the next 50+ years. The economy will explode long before that. Nuclear plants are a way to produce energy in a world without cheap oil. That changes the economical considerations a lot.
What lobbyists? Concrete powder companies? Other governmental companies?
replyKeep in mind similar things have been said about solar and wind previously.
Civil engineering, power equipment (ABB is a big firm in Switzerland), Energy companies (the market is Switzerland is a constellation of local monopolies, who have already announced they won't invest their own huge money reserves in nuclear, it will have to be all public money and garanties), etc.
replyCivil engineering and power equipment companies also profit from other plants. In fact, there are specialized power companies for wind and solar. Can't speak for all countries, but lobbying for green energy in the USA, according to PACs, is higher than nuclear. I don't think Switzerland is different.
replyIf energy companies won't invest, then either don't invest public funding, or invest but with focus on developing long-term technologies. After all, the primary reason for nuclear being uneconomic today is lack of investment. If solar and wind can be made profitable, I don't see how nuclear is any different.
It it turns out like the F-35 it would be amazing. F-35 is much better and safer than what came before and more important CHEAPER per unit than previous generations.
replyI can't say if this is uninformed or sarcasm?
reply