> And? ... and no one will invest into nuclear plant which are to be amortized in (best case) 40 years, along with all the megastuff needed to operate them (fo

> And? ... and no one will invest into nuclear plant which are to be amortized in (best case) 40 years, along with all the megastuff needed to operate them (formation, fuel processing, waste disposal...) if they are not pretty sure to be able to exploit them for at least 40 years. Note: currently all planed nuclear plants replace (at global scale) existing ones and therefore do not cause pressure over fuel (because there are very few of them), and their amortization plans are done upon 60 years. > If you're implying that current JORC reserves* are all that exist Nope, however massive prospection since the 1940's largely bumped up after the bubble (nearby 2007 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_bubble_of_2007#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_bubble_of_2007#Impact ) didn't lead to disruptive reserves discoveries, therefore this evaluation (about 130 years for the current fleet, at current conditions) is realistic. Who exactly will invest tens of billions of USD to build many nuclear plants (and their auxiliaries) on such a bet? If there are other ways to obtain enough nuclear fuel at realistic conditions the burden of proof weights on you. Please state at least one. Bonus: lowering uranium ore grade leads to more emission, threatening the 'low-carbon' qualification for nuclear. Scientific studies are clear: M. Lenzen ("between 10 and 130 g CO2-e/kWhel, with an average of 65 g") and E. Warner et G. Heath ("9 to 110 g CO‐eq/kWh by 2050") https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycle_energy_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_nuclear_energy_A_review https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222817608_Life_cycl...