I agree nuclear is needed for a sustainable energy mix due to reliability, not price. Your optimism on price seems unfounded. As you said, nuclear is the same a

I agree nuclear is needed for a sustainable energy mix due to reliability, not price. Your optimism on price seems unfounded. As you said, nuclear is the same age as PV. PV gets more interest now, but nuclear used to have WAY more interest. The world has had no shortage of multi billion dollar nuclear investments. Why would continued nuclear investment fare better price reductions than continued solar investments? If anything mega projects have evidence of getting more expensive over time (US at least) and nuclear afaik is always a mega project Regardless, even if you’re right, the point is that you can’t know that for sure yet to are so quick to talk of the revealed preferences of opposing policy, as if everyone took a look at free energy and said “nah I’d rather have blackouts”. When in reality everyone looked at how expensive nuclear was and didn’t share your excessive optimism on future price reductions > I never said "fossil fuel energy." I said energy. “Limit fossil fuel” I meant supply side restrictions on cheap non renewables which would outcompete expensive nuclear on one hand, or cover the gap from insufficient/peaky energy production via solar/wind (should we not pursue nuclear). I didn’t realize you were talking about demand side restrictions.