Also energy cost should be as low as possible. A few nuclear plants could be a good solution. (I’m not an energy expert) When you lower energy cost, the cost of all other things can also be lowered.
Also energy cost should be as low as possible. A few nuclear plants could be a good solution. (I’m not an energy expert) When you lower energy cost, the cost of all other things can also be lowered.
We also have soaring energy costs in Sweden.. but _only in the south_ close to Germany, in the north we still have plans on using relatively inefficient electrolysis to produce hydrogen to in turn reduce GHG's from steel production, because we have so much power generated from wind (uneven) and waterfalls (even).
Sweden is once again building nuclear plants after 40 years, but we could've started far earlier.
There are arguments to be made in favor of nuclear, but I don't think cost is one of them
Construction workers haven’t gotten meaningfully more efficient while the salaries have risen based on industries with efficiency gains.
It seems like nuclear power has an extremely tiny sweet spot in countries development curve where it is only very expensive.
Right where salaries are still low but the knowhow for advanced technology has started to burgeon. For example India and China. Although China has been cutting back their nuclear program in favor of renewables for a while now.
You should look at the track record of recent nuclear projects in Europe. Olkiluoto and Flamanville both 3x+ over budget in time and money. Sizewell C isn't doing too well either, its very far from cheap.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...