> Compare this to solar and battery storage: You can literally build a factory for both in the same ten or more years it takes to build the nuclear power plant.

> Compare this to solar and battery storage: You can literally build a factory for both in the same ten or more years it takes to build the nuclear power plant. There is absolutely no physical reason not to produce 100 times as many batteries and solar panels as we do now. Resources are abundant (you can replace rare materials at a slight cost of efficiency). Let's do the numbers. Tesla Gigafactory in Nevada costed $5B. Nuclear costs something like $6B per installed GW. Gigafactory can produce 35 GWh of storage per year, which is just over one day of storage for a single nuclear reactor. Now, how much these batteries cost? Let's be generous to Tesla, and assume that unit price will be around $100/kWh. That means that the Gigafactory can produce $3.5B worth of batteries per year. Suppose you have $6B dollars. What would you rather buy, 2 years worth of entire output of Tesla Gigafactory, that would give you 3 days worth of storage at 1GW output, and which would still require spending additional billions on building primary generation (solar and wind), or one nuclear reactor that would give you the same 1GW for next 50 years, with very low operational costs? Primary battery storage simply doesn't make economic sense at grid scale at the moment. This is not to say that renewables are stupid, or that batteries are useless. It's just the idea of using wind/solar + batteries as a base load just doesn't make sense at current level of technology, and this is why nobody is actually doing it, or planning to do it. If, or when it starts to make sense, you'll see entrepreneurs invest billions in buying up batteries and setting up battery farms. However, this does not make sense now, and will not make sense for probably at least another decade.