Because a vote for a GW of new nuclear is a vote against removing 5GW of fossil fuels now and a vote against removing 4-9GW of fossil fuels later. New nuclear

Because a vote for a GW of new nuclear is a vote against removing 5GW of fossil fuels now and a vote against removing 4-9GW of fossil fuels later. New nuclear -- outside of Chinese built, and if you believe them the plants russia builds to make other countries dependent on them -- is over $10/W. Solar is edging 30c/watt peak. This is <$2/W net in many areas. Nuclear still needs backup power and it's not online for a decade or two. In that time solar will have paid itself back 1-2 times and will still have useful capacity. So you get 5W net now and 5-10W net before opening for 1W net of nuclear. The nuclear will then be not economically viable to keep open at $10-$20/MWh let alone pay itself back. I'd much rather run all the gas peakers 60% of the time now (the shoulders still produce 1x energy when peak is 5x), then switch them all over to green hydrogen or ammonia in ten years (or rather do it gradually) than turn 10% of them off in ten years for 60-90% of the time.