Actually, it seems that China, India, Romania and South Korea, all of which have currently active heavy water moderated reactors, could not care less what a bunch of gas apologists with no science educations in the West think of their program.
In fact, Canada built lots of heavy water reactors, and no, they didn't break the bank. Thus, if the Canadian nuclear infrastructure has been destroyed, it was probably destroyed by dumb anti-nuke rhetoric.
Anti-nukes complaining about the FOAKE costs of nuclear power are rather like arsonists wanting to be applauded for joining the volunteer fire department.
I note that there is NOT ONE solar facility on earth that can provide 1000 MWe of continuous average power at 90% capacity utilization for under $40 billion dollars.
If one can do math - and anti-nukes, um, can't - and understand that solar energy has a capacity utilization of something like 10% of
peak capacity, one can glean these figures from the solar buzz data:
http://solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htmThe calculation runs like this ($4.23/
peakwatt)*1000MW*1000W/MW/0.1 = $42,300,000,000, not counting batteries and redundant infrastructure and fuels.
That doesn't stop lightweight bloggers with no science educations from saying that solar energy is
cheap.
If it were, with all the insipid mindless cheering going on for 5 decades for the solar scam, it would have been a significant form of energy, and would be producing something like the 16 exajoules of electricity the lying gas salesman Amory Lovins predicted for it in 1979.
The reality, as I never tire of pointing out, is different:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html