[fabifabulous]

It still is a very good idea. How we implemented it however, is the problem.

Nuclear energy is more expensive than any other mean of energy production. That is, when subsidies and disposal of nuclear waste (for a long, long time) are part of the equation instead of privatizing earnings and collectivizing costs. Moreover, nuclear energy produces waste for generations and generations to deal with. In all those decades of nuclear energy production we haven‘t been able to find a good solution for a secure disposal of nuclear waste. Because nobody wants it nearby. Similar to the ExxonMobil CEO quickly becoming a NIMBY regarding fracking when it was supposed to take place near where he lived.

The shift to renewables was slowed down because of cheap gas from Russia and „alternatives“ such as nuclear energy production. Both massive mistakes.

What we had needed was massive investments and partnerships within the EU and with nearby countries such as Norway and Switzerland e.g. for pumped hydro storage, green hydrogen and massive European energy networks (e.g. for solar energy from southern Europe).

That will be our tasks for the next years and statistics show that we have massive investments into solar energy and heat pumps to tackle future challenges.

[arghwhat]

The cost of nuclear is in planning and construction.

There only scenario in which shutting down a nuclear plant within the next, say, 50 years makes sense is if it has physically deteriorated to the point of it's stability being unknown.

Once there is a surplus of entirely green energy, you can consider removing nuclear idle capacity, but even then you'd have to ask "why?".

Yes, nuclear produces (manageable) waste. But coal throws its waste into the air, actively killing people of lung cancer and harming cognitive ability, while slowly boiling the planet. And that's before we look at mining.

Solar and wind would be nicer, but there's no discussion to be had about removing nuclear while coal and oil power is still out there killing us and the planet.

Heck, if you're looking at lives saved, nuclear wins - the total direct and indirect deaths per power unit of nuclear is lower than wind, as the large number of windmills needed to be constructed bump the worksite accident numbers.