> Nuclear is too expensive & takes too long to build > Places like France (and Ontario!) have been 60–80% nuclear powered for many decades, safely and economica

> Nuclear is too expensive & takes too long to build > Places like France (and Ontario!) have been 60–80% nuclear powered for many decades, safely and economically(*). It only took a decade or two to completely transition their grids. China is reportedly able to build nuclear plants with 1/3 the cost and time as the West. This a misrepresentation of what people mean when they say this. People are talking about building new nuclear power plants, while you are referring to already built nuclear power plants. So far in the west these projects have been very expensive and they have taken much longer than expected. The west has lost its ability to build big infrastructure on time and within a reasonable budget. We also don't really know what nuclear costs in France because EDF's nuclear activities are lumped together with other activities. I have no idea about Ontario, maybe their reporting is more transparent. Vattenfall in Sweden is also pretty transparent about the electricity generation costs needed to break-even, it's probably a better choice than referring to EDF's opaque economics. >Nuclear waste is dangerous and is an unsolved problem >Spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely indefinitely, and has been for decades. Moreover, it’s a resource, since it contains 90% of its original energy. That means it could be reused, instead of mining more. In doing so, it’s burned down to less radioactive byproducts that are even safer. It could be "reused", but why would anyone do that when it's cheaper to mine uranium instead? This could be an interesting track to explore, it's probably possible to reduce the cost. Anyway, good luck.