[fcanesin]

That is just the biggest amount of misinformation and SV bias I have seen in a long time! The hole point in nuclear is that it is cheap and fast to implement by GW/h, the first nuclear power plant (Shippingport) became online in 1958, by 1978 15% of all US energy on the grid was from nuclear plants. It is modular, can be made near the consumption center, it is baseload, high density, virtually zero CO2 equivalence and historically safer than building houses.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

[jartelt]

No, you are wrong. It takes longer than 10 years to permit/build a new nuclear plant and it costs over $1 billion. It is the exact opposite of cheap and fast.

[fcanesin]

This is about grid generation, so as I said: by GW/h. With solar and wind you have to store and over provision.. there are lots of studies on the cost of replacing nuclear power with solar and wind (just Google "nuclear vs solar price"), even with the current financing mechanisms that solar and wind have (against the over regulation and interest that nuclear has) nuclear is still a order of magnitude cheaper, that is why China is so heavily invested in nuclear as we speak.