The problem is that because we need to progress in 5 years, it means that by 10 years we will hopefully have way more renewable solutions, which is cheaper than

The problem is that because we need to progress in 5 years, it means that by 10 years we will hopefully have way more renewable solutions, which is cheaper than nuclear. So, investors don't want to pay for a nuclear plant that will be built in 10 years but when up and running, will not be profitable anymore because renewable would have changed the market. It's a real problem for nuclear plants: we still need them as "baseline continuous" generators, but no-one wants to risk investing for a site when there is a large chance that this specific site will not be needed in 10 years, will be too expensive to run and not competitive, and will go bust. We made the mistake 10 years ago by not planning ahead (even France, who was going to the nuclear route, messed up by not renewing and maintaining their know-how). But now, it's just true that building an expensive power plant that will not be used is just not a good idea.