So in summary you don't have evidence, but just make it up. Again the article argues (with evidence), that a fission plant would be more expensive than current

So in summary you don't have evidence, but just make it up. Again the article argues (with evidence), that a fission plant would be more expensive than current wind/solar even if the reactor would be free. Do you have evidence to the contrary, hand-waving about future small reactors having the potential to be cheaper (also you argued it's regulation which is the driver of cost, how can then multiple small reactors be cheaper? Would they not be subject to the same regulations? > I think the example of France shows that we could have had green energy for the last 40 years, and that Frances big mistake was to go away from nuclear (they actually started depending on gas). France was one of the few shining lights, and built amazing projects like Superphénix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix) but instead of building more, they were killed politically. The reason they moved away from nuclear was economical not political. France is probably the most pro-nuclear nation in the west all major parties are strongly pro nuclear, even the french greens are ambivalent. The argument does not make sense.