> "And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of ele

> "And if we're talking about the construction of new power plants, then nuclear power is simply excluded. Not just because it is the most expensive form of electricity generation today, but, above all, because it takes a long time to build reactors. In other words, every euro invested in new nuclear power plants makes the climate crisis worse because now this money cannot be used to invest in efficient climate protection options." The economic arguments in the article might be right, that nuclear just isn't price competitive anymore. But I think the argument that "anything spent on option A is taking away from option B" isn't really all that convincing. I mean, we could take money away from other things, like subsidies to fossil fuel companies and build some new nuclear power plants. Or we could build fewer aircraft carriers, or raise the tax rate on capital gains. The main problem here isn't that we're spending too much on nuclear power plants, it's that we need to drastically expand our use of solar and wind. (And while we're at it start building out more utility-scale large battery banks, and/or build high-capacity transcontinental HVDC lines so most of the world can buy power at all times from wherever the sun is shining right then.) It's sort of like saying that paying a thousand dollars to provide rent for someone whose house burned down is killing a bunch of people in Africa because you could have spent that money more efficiently on mosquito nets. I understand the argument, but people everywhere have needs and it's better I think in the long run to help with all the ones we can than to sort all the needs in priority order based on cost/benefit ratio.