Nuclear energy is green and it’s very reliable. The problem is that people seem to think wind is a good idea, when it’s really a highly visible form of greenwashing.
Much as nuclear energy is both green, reliable and safe - it's also hard to imagine it becoming cost-competitive at the scale that wind and solar are. Better regulation might help a bit, but even in places like South Korea where nuclear costs are unusually low and solar/wind costs unusually high they're basically competitive - and I wouldn't be surprised for solar+wind to fall in price there too, once they've slightly more mass in the market.
The focus on wind+solar over nuclear is less due to greenwashing that due to penny-pinching.
That's not as bad as I expected, and probably looks even better when you factor in the difference in uptime (e.g. including storage into the cost of solar).
I have no numbers but I've heard lots of times that "green" energy like wind and solar get a lot, and nuclear not so much.
The government is paying for 50% of the nuclear plant, and there's a 30% write-off on solar.
But thank you for your valuable contribution.
If you want details from someone who can do a quick Google search, instead, I offer: It seems like there was a politically led moratorium for several decades, then allowed but regulated into impracticality. Meanwhile the reactors they built have operated well for about 40 years and provide a large portion of the country's annual electrical generation.
Anyway, don't worry about it. It's not the most important thing happening in the world :)
Source: https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical
It's currently 16:31 GMT, and the 'live' feed says 17.8 % of the UK grid is currently running on wind as I'm typing this.
Source: https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live
You must be delusional if you think wind power is greenwashing.