Note the "could be".
Can the myth of cheap, safe and quick to deploy fission energy please die?
It's not cheap, for good reasons[1]:
> Among the surprising findings in the study, which covered 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data, was that, contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant.
> The authors also found that while changes in safety regulations could account for some of the excess costs, that was only one of numerous factors contributing to the overages.
It's not safe:
> US nuclear regulators greatly underestimate potential for nuclear disaster, researchers say[2]
> Now I was serving on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [snip] In 2009, President Barack Obama named me the agency’s chairman. [snip] > Afterward, the falling cost of renewable power changed the calculus. Despite working in the industry for more than a decade, I now believe that nuclear power’s benefits are no longer enough to risk the welfare of people living near these plants. I became so convinced that, years after departing office, I’ve now made alternative energy development my new career, leaving nuclear power behind. The current and potential costs — in lives and dollars — are just too high. [3]
It's always slow to deploy[4]:
> Finland's long-delayed Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor connected to the power grid for the first time on Saturday, the plant's operator said, 12 years after its planned launch. Located on Finland's west coast, Olkiluoto-3 is the country's first new nuclear plant in over four decades and Europe's first in almost 15 years.
[1] https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
[2] https://phys.org/news/2017-05-nuclear-greatly-underestimate-...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-oversaw-the-us-nucl...
[4] https://www.dw.com/en/finlands-much-delayed-nuclear-plant-la...