All the solar and wind proponents I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry.
We need a mix of low-carbon energy sources, where nuclear is an important piece (otherwise we'll have to resort to oil/gas/coal).
> All the solar and wind proponents I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry.
Now that we have established that both sides are into magical thinking, how about just reducing energy consumption?
> The new 1,114 megawatt (MW) Unit 3 reactor
> Construction at the two new reactor sites began in 2009. Originally expected to cost $14 billion and begin commercial operation in 2016 (Vogtle 3) and 2017 (Vogtle 4), the project ran into significant construction delays and cost overruns. The total cost of the project is now estimated at more than $30 billion.
Meanwhile:
"Utility-scale solar capacity in the U.S. electric power sector increased from 61 gigawatts (GW) in 2021 to 71 GW in 2022, according to data from our Electricity Power Monthly. Wind capacity grew from 133 GW in 2021 to 141 GW in 2022."[1]
So solar increased 10 Gigawatts last year and wind grew 8 Gigawatts. About 18x that one nuclear reactor we've managed to complete since 2016. In a single year.
Also wind and solar is cheaper than the cost of nuclear energy now:
"Nuclear energy is generally more expensive than wind and solar energy. The IEA report estimates the cost of electricity from new nuclear plants to be between $60 and $70 per MWh (megawatt-hour), while the cost of electricity from onshore wind and solar PV is estimated to be between $30 and $60 per MWh."[2]
So wind and solar is faster and cheaper. The only main benefit is a nuclear plant can still keep generating power in inclement weather (which is still important, but doesn't make it cheaper or faster than wind and solar).
[1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=55960
[2]: https://medium.com/@liam.m.obrien/nuclear-vs-wind-and-solar-...
Nuclear capacity factors are over 90% [1]. Wind is around 30%, solar around 25%, so it’s really ~5 GW (solar and wind capacity added), vs. ~1 GW nuclear fission added (and we’re not trying that hard to build more nuclear plants).
[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statist...
That being said, unless there is a huge regulatory shift it seems like nuclear won't get much cheaper and solar and wind will continue to do so, so comparing those numbers will get easier to compare as the costs spread further.
If you just mean the bureaucracy is impossible to defeat, it would just take political will. Which we are seeing more and more of recently. The first of a kind build is always slow.
Also, "it's been done before" is a much better argument than "we think we can make these massive and untested changes to our society because my studies say so" like I see constantly from solar/wind maximalists on demand response, mass v2g, hyper connected grid, underground hydrogen battery etc, etc.
And even in China, renewables are outpacing new nuclear construction.