Where is this civilized world where nuclear is cheap and fast to build?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
Total cost to owner (TVO) for this 1600 MW EPR will be little less than 6 billion euros and the rest of the cost (5 billion euros) will be paid by Areva i.e. French citizens as taxes. Building of the plant started 2005 and after the latest delays the reactor is supposed to go critical for the first time during January 2022. It was supposed to be ready during 2010.
As you can see: Cheap and fast to build.
Areva figured that this was an easy way to open the European nuclear power plant markets after the political damage to the industry due to Chernobyl. They did not take into account the fact that a lot of the professionals required were already retired and at the same time the safety regulations were much tighter than before.
> As you can see: Cheap and fast to build.
How is 17+ years (with a 12+ year delay) "fast"?
Due to the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents any nuclear power projects today are always an uphill battle with the increasingly difficult to fulfill regulations. At the same time there will be strong political pressures from outside sources like Greenpeace.
If the safety regulations for cars were as stringent with respect to the risks involved there would be no cars at all. Even walking on the streets would be forbidden without using a helmet.
Sounds like it has a lot to do with the regulations/regulators.
Interestingly the City of Helsinki is now considering compact nuclear reactors as a replacement for the energy source required for district heating.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12098463 (in Finnish only)
Currently they are running on coal which is to be replaced by a bio fuel (wood chips) based power plant by year 2024. Many are not happy about the projected increase of traffic from trucks bringing in the bio fuel. The nuclear option will not happen due to too many diehard Green party voters in Helsinki but it is a sign of the times. Even the Green party in Finland is at least partly supportive to nuclear power.
Do you believe the regulations/regulators in Europe are acting reasonably? You could try to argue that extreme risk aversion is the better failure mode, but that’s hard to prove in the long term.
I am pro nuclear power due to the fact that producing the same amount of energy using coal power causes more loss of human lives. This has been true even when comparing just the real radiation exposure from the fly ash of an operating coal powered plant and the maximum allowed radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant. It is still true when comparing the loss of lives per produced energy when both the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima accident are accounted for.
From the rest of your comment I gather you were joking, but please don't post nationalistic flamebait to HN. It's really easy for it to turn into nationalistic flamewars, which are particularly tedious and nasty and also relatively avoidable.