Still, I think nuclear is just not viable anymore. Here in The Netherlands for instance, we have quite a few days where energy prices are negative due to an (over) abundance of solar and wind energy.
A commercial nuclear power plant is out of the question, as it won't be price competitive with wind or solar. So tax payers will have to foot the bill anyway. I'd rather foot the bill for something more economical, battery storage and other solutions.
The 'real' problems we face in The Netherlands is that our grid can't be expanded fast enough to deal with increased wind and solar production.
Yes, yes, wind and solar are intermittent and that's something that we have to deal with somehow. However, for the price of a nuclear powerplant (or four) you can buy ungodly amounts of battery storage that we very likely can do without nuclear.
>The International Atomic Energy Agency convened a summit to build momentum for a low-emissions technology that many expect will be critical for hitting climate targets. A group of mostly Western countries pledged to triple nuclear generation by 2050. But lenders balked at the eyewatering cost of doing so.
Why aren't lenders jumping at the opportunity?
>Projects in Western economies have been plagued by construction delays and ballooning costs in recent decades. The newest reactor in the European Union — Olkiluoto 3 in Finland — started generating power last year, more than a decade late and three times over budget.
That explains things yes.
>“We need state involvement, I don’t see any other model,” Ostros said. “Probably we need quite heavy state involvement to make projects bankable.”
If the state would be involved, please put the money in something else. Something better.