EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy

Nuclear power is clean but VERY EXPENSIVE.

Dispatble solar and wind are about 1/5 the price of new nuclear.

Your comment is just disinformation at this point. If nuclear was very expensive China wouldn't have built 30 in the last 10 years despite massive opposition.

In reality when you take all the costs into account there is no cheaper form of energy generation and there likely never will be, outside of cost decreases in Fission based nuclear itself.

It is hard for humans to work with exponential curves. Solar went from 15 cents per kwh to 5 cents per kwh over the last 10 years.

Anticipating such a rapid decline is hard and a lot of people still are stuck on outdated data.

Sure China commissioned these plants in the past and will plan more, but it won't be due to cost.

It is expensive because we choose to make it expensive. It is regulation pushing safety levels far beyond other industries, and far beyond science (radiation is far less harmful than regulatory models suggest)

You do NOT get to constantly taut the low mortality rates of nuclear AND call for less regulation at the same time.

But even from a very matter of fact point of view, I'd rather have 1000 people die every year for 20 years, than have 20.000 people die on a single bad day/week. The economic and social impact is far, far bigger when it can't be "spread out" over multiple years.

But you don't need to work with exponential curves to know that you can use solar only for like half a day and even less during winter. Those solar installation now are big part of overall cost. And with majority of EU population living in flats where you gonna install them?

> If nuclear was very expensive

you have to start paying interest on loan from first day 1 even if construction starts on 100th day and if safety committee rules some part of approved design needs to change to improve safety it's own to demolish, clean and rebuild the new parts.

The problem is not design regulations but how much difficult on purpose goverment has made it in the west to construct one.

Yes, you do. Especially given the outstanding new levels of nuclear tech and safety. The economic and social impacts are hugely positive. You will see this in the next decade as new facilities come online.

Do you even know anything about the relative death rates historically? You should look it up.

That's faulty logic, it's like claiming nuclear bombs were safe until Hiroshima.

We know nuclear reactor accidents could potentially kill millions of humans, even it hasn't done so yet.

Even in survivors of nuclear blasts only 3% died because of the effects of radiation

Solar installations are already so cheap that they are cheaper than the fuel being burned in existing power plants. So it makes sense to have them replace this kind of fuel burning.

They are still getting cheaper so there is no stopping solar.

I have seen statistics showing that solar parks currently cover less area than there are Golf courses (at least in Europe).