[eldaisfish]

Please be careful with labelling wind and solar cheaper. They have zero fuel cost which is true however there are a slew of other costs - mostly balancing the grid and dealing with the uncertainty and unreliability of wind and solar - that are not paid for by the wind and solar generators. Those costs are paid - by consumers but if you add them to the wind and solar farms, they suddenly aren't as cheap.

Nuclear power needn't take that long to build. China is building them in five or six years. Standardisation helps immensely with timelines and safety.

Batteries are not an energy solution. The current largest batteries around the world can only provide minutes of power for typical western grids. Yes, minutes.

[beached_whale]

One huge factor that affects the environment is land use footprint. Nuclear has the smallest, by far.

[bryanlarsen]

> costs

Solar is an entire order of magnitude cheaper than nuclear. That's a lot of wiggle room for incidental costs.

> Nuclear power needn't take that long to build. China is building them in five or six years. Standardisation helps immensely with timelines and safety.

That's only counting the time from when shovels hit the ground. Even in China they spend 5 years before that in planning.

> Batteries are not an energy solution. The current largest batteries around the world can only provide minutes of power for typical western grids. Yes, minutes.

Neither is nuclear. Current nuclear designs cannot provide peaking power, and new designs that can are even more ridiculously expensive than current designs.