Because they lobby against advancement of renewable energy?
The estimated energy needs of developing countries is massive. Renewables can offset it a bit, but it's a drop in the bucket. Even if nuclear got past political blocks, it still takes 30 years to build.
[Edit] The above is just one analyst's opinion. It may be inaccurate our outdated and lacks sources.
That is a novel view. Perhaps a reference?
Perhaps it is not true
Almost the opposite, look up the "solar not nuclear" campaign by oil heat institute.
> More likely because others lobby against nuclear energy.
Exactly this. Oil companies know nuclear is their greatest threat, and that fossil fuels conveniently fill the shortcomings of intermittent renewables.
"As of 2011, a strategy paper released by Greenpeace titled "Battle of Grids" proposed gradual replacement of nuclear power by fossil gas plants which would provide "flexible backup for wind and solar power"." - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
Objectively false. Average global nuclear power plant construction time is somewhere around 7 years. Some get delayed significantly, some are done in 3 years, but it averages out shorter than you think.
For perspective, solar plants are about 2 years to get operational, combined cycle natural gas is around 3.
The other thing to keep in mind is that nuclear plants have seen significant upgrades, and continue to over their lifecycles. The US has added 19GW of nuclear capacity without building any new plants in the last couple decades which is certainly a reason why new nuclear projects haven't been happening that often.
Meanwhile China is building a ton of new plants, Russia is building something like 20 reactors for other countries, France has decided to keep all of its nuclear capacity after they cancelled their plan to shut them down, so I'd guess nuclear energy isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
What would be necessary is to have the NRC/etc approve a few modern reactor designs along with clear guidelines as to where/how they can be built. That'd reduce the regulatory burden on all sides which in turn would reduce cost, construction time, and operational safety significantly. That's as close to a solution to this problem as I've come across, and, quarterly, I write a letter to the government agencies in question telling them that. It's not much, but hey, I'm doing my part.
Any explosion in nuclear builds that had a chance of mattering on the time scales we need is not going to require just a few standard designs. It’s going to require mass factory construction of SMRs, and solving all the problems that haven’t been solved in that area. And we’re not there at all.