Sadly the problem is that HN is not up to date on current research and economics, nuclear proponents argue like it's 2005-10 and that nothing has changed. Simil

Sadly the problem is that HN is not up to date on current research and economics, nuclear proponents argue like it's 2005-10 and that nothing has changed. Similarly to how you are characterizing the arguments. At that time starting up another wave of nuclear was the best choice we ever made, because renewables was too far flung out to be a certain solution. If Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville, Vogtle and Virgil C. Summer had been completed on time with amazing efficiency we would be running nuclear today. The difference now, 10 years later, is that renewables have leapfrogged nuclear several times over and thus it does not make a sensible investment from either safety, economics or any other angle. Other than being a "known" choice because the grid has always been centralized and some people like the cool dangerous steam boiler technology of it. So what we need to do today is to draw the learnings of those nuclear attempts and not pour another €X00 billion into pride projects.