Solar is not 15% the price of nuclear. This falsehood comes up pretty often because the extreme cases of "late by half a decade" have been parroted incessantly

Solar is not 15% the price of nuclear. This falsehood comes up pretty often because the extreme cases of "late by half a decade" have been parroted incessantly by antinuclear folks. When one actually looks at the numbers, on average the time to build a nuclear plant is 5 years and nowhere near the cost of the late colleagues. Nuclear plants also operate *efficiently* for decades whereas solar panels only for a few years to a decade. That means replacement has to come more often for panels. They also require more land to generate the same amount of energy (I don't know if that's taken into account in the calculations). And of course energy has to be retrieved from other sources when solar won't operate which might be more expensive than solar. While the price of solar is dropping of course, so is the price of nuclear as new reactors are being developed and prototyped: can't remember the name right now but one was funded by Bill Gates and is built in arrays from multiple mass producible units. That allows building smaller, localized reactors at a lower price.