Which, once again, shows why nuclear is an economic disaster. The extremely high capital costs, and the long times from conception to completion means that it's very difficult for it to profitably (after adjusting for financial risk) compete with fossil fuels, which can be ramped up or down based on their costs, or renewables, which while also predominantly capital driven, can be brought from idea to pumping electricity in a fraction of the time.
"Nuclear" is not an economic disaster. "Nuclear politics" is, and has been since the technology first appeared.
We have the technological capability to build perfectly safe, high-performance reactors that spit out low-risk waste products (or no waste products) for far less than the cost of any current/planned project.
What we don't have is politicians with the balls to push through the political minefield that come with it.
