> If you don't believe the wind and solar costs, then obviously you'd come to other conclusions, but you'd be wrong. If I'm wrong and you're right, then I have

> If you don't believe the wind and solar costs, then obviously you'd come to other conclusions, but you'd be wrong. If I'm wrong and you're right, then I have no problem with that, although from what I've seen, the various green movements in Europe have attacked nuclear almost exclusively for ideological reasons, not economic ones. I still believe that if we give nuclear an equal playing field to other energy forms when it comes to safety standards, other environmental regulations and allow them to be built efficiently by private companies without unnecessary red tape, prices will come down enough for them to be competitive. Likewise, it seems to me that efforts to fully cover the grid with wind power (particularly in climates where solar is still expensive) has met with problems that have been partly covered up by proponents, and that this has contributed to increased prices, at least in Europe. But if honest analysis proves me wrong, then I see no problem with that, just as long as it is really the economical side, not ideological ideas that the true reason for future prioritizations.