See a nice summary (with sources you can check) at https://energy.glex.no/calculator
If a nuclear plant has a catastrophic accident, Western Europe could be uninhabitable for generations. Likely? No. But completely possible.
And unlike natural disasters, chernobyl and others can be learned from, and currently running stations will not fail in such manner.
Why people keep falling for this is a mystery to me.
Comparing with coal burning plants is nonsense, compare to wind/hydro/solar on a long enough timescale rather than to compare with the most polluting fossil fuel. That's stacking the deck in favor of nuclear.
I'm sure nuclear has its place in this whole story, but let's not pretend that it is without problems, at best it will be a stepping stone.
Nobody is doing that.
All this is is a way to sway public opinion, nothing actually gets solved in the short term.
Well Germany is replacimg part of nuclear energy with natural gas plants so it is a really important debate indeed.
Maybe it is the decade-and-a-half that I've been studying the energy situation in some detail?
The nuclear industry has a typical installed unit cost of $25B or thereabouts (that's usually not the original estimate or even close to that). A typical windpark is a fraction of that and solar deployments are much smaller as well.
Besides that the market for solar and windpower is much more fragmented, with nuclear there are only very few parties on the supply side.
OK but you can not expect everybody else to take your personal experience at face value.
The average windpark may be smaller, but companies producing panels and rotators presumably are quite big.
A lot of money has already been invested by governments, and much, much more is to come. I don't think the individual costs of nuclear power plants proves anything one way or another.