[ncmncm]

Each dollar diverted from renewables to nukes brings climate catastrophe nearer.

Starting a new nuke means burning coal for an extra decade, and at the end of that decade getting much less power per euro, displacing correspondingly less CO2, than if you had built out renewables instead.

There is simply no contest.

Even refurbishing a nuke instead of building out renewables is a losing proposition. Just continuing to operate a nuke instead of building out and then operating renewables is a losing proposition.

The only legitimate use for keeping a nuke running is while you are waiting to bring enough renewables you are building online to wholly displace it, because what you are spending operating it is using up money that could be building more renewables.

This is the magic of exponentially falling costs.

At the point where enough spare renewable generating capacity is available to charge storage, it will be time to start building out increasingly cheap storage.

[kwere]

you dont need 10 years to build a nuclear plant, most of delays are due to " political limitations" and construction/design inexpertise. South Korea build them on 56 months on average. Scale matter

[ncmncm]

In the US and Europe, it takes ten years. Or 20.