It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.

Solar + storage is currently at less than half the cost of nuclear, while wind + storage is at a third of the cost: statista.com/…/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-co…

I’m going to work on the assumption that you’re working off old data, because the claims you made are very far from where we’re actually at.

What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.

In many cases, public funding is no longer necessary for renewables. That’s why Texas of all places is becoming a wind powerhouse. Energy storage technologies are less mature and still warrant public investment.

Both renewables and storage technologies have something very important in common - they are absolutely plummeting in costs year-over-year, meaning that while nuclear is not competitive on price today, it’s just going to get worse from here on out.

I like to look at Sweden as an example, where the current government is pushing investment in nuclear. Their proposed plan is to:

• Have the public guarantee loans for nuclear construction
• Have the public guarantee a minimum kWh-price for these facilities

Aside from being incredibly expensive for the public, displacing other potential investment whether they be in energy production, other climate initiatives or just investment into the welfare of the population, it also makes private investment into renewables less lucrative and as such less likely to happen. On top of that, it’s being used as an excuse to not grant permits for construction of renewables by aforementioned government.