I just provided one source against a string of claims right out of the playbook from the conservative anti global warming lobby. If this makes me a "funny" one

I just provided one source against a string of claims right out of the playbook from the conservative anti global warming lobby. If this makes me a "funny" one, I gladly am. I don't like dealing with people throwing out unsubstantiated claims or dismissing others with ad hominems. Btw. you could just provide a counter argument (I would be open to that in a empirical discussion) but you chose to do a counter question showing you actually have no interest in rational, fact based discussion culture. To quote numbers: Between 2013 and 2025, 14 nuclear plants are slated to shut down. As of July 2018, there are 99 operational plants in the country.[1] I wasn't able to quickly find the number of reactors that compromise said plants. But from a purely nationalistic perspective you are right. The US actually looses reactors. But I stated World wide numbers. I don't care about the US loosing reactors. I was looking at it from a global perspective and just providing one counter point to someone stating unsubstantiated stuff. Btw. themain reason for the US not building new reactors in the same amount they are shutting down others seems to be economic, though. Other sources of energy are nowadays way cheaper to produce and atomic seems to have lost the status of cash cow for the industry. [1] [1]: https://theconversation.com/the-demise-of-us-nuclear-power-in-4-charts-98817 https://theconversation.com/the-demise-of-us-nuclear-power-i...