This can be right in Germany. But France or China are nuclear friendly, and their costs are rising as much as everywhere else. Lets talk about the Flamanville

This can be right in Germany. But France or China are nuclear friendly, and their costs are rising as much as everywhere else. Lets talk about the Flamanville Unit 3: the new plant was approved long ago, and its construction began on 2007 (planned to end in 2012). No bureaucracy, no extra regulations, no restrictions. Built by EDF which is to say by the France gobernment, as they own 90% of EDF), budgeted 3.3 billions. - 2012, costs escalated to 8.5 billion. Delayed to 2016. - 2014, delayed to 2017 due to Areva failure on delivery. Areva is owned by the french gobernment, who lost a lot of taxpayer money on it. - 2015, the french gobernment detected structural problems in the vessel. Detected multiple failures in cooling systems. Cost increased to 10.5 billion, finishing delayed to 2018. - Due to delays, loans required more guarantees in 2017. The french gobernment agreed, and deemed the plant "safe to start" even before tests, to appease investors. - 2018, leaks detected in tests. Costs rose to 11 billion, opening delayed until 2019. - 2019, more leaks detected, costs of repairment rose to 12.4 billion. - 2020, a gobernment audit estimated that the costs would rise to 19 billion, and it will be charged via taxes to the french citizens. Plant still not working. This is the history of a nuclear power plant heavily favoured by the gobernment, with costs multiplying by 7 in fifteen years (and rising). All of it while having to compete with solar and eolic technologies that are naturally falling in costs year after year. Same happened in USA Vogtle, and taxpayers end up eating the overcosts. Nuclear plants are, economically, a suicide for any society. They are cheap to run, but they are extremely complex monsters that costs a lot to build, even in the most favourable scenario. Our pool of cheap, abundant, reliable and safe electricity seems more real with eolic and PV than with nuclear. I have more faith in "each-house-with-a-PV-roof-and-batteries" than in "100%-nuclear". Notice that I didn't even menction waste, accidents, costs of fuel, fearmongering, etc. in my posts. Just plain economics.