You've been hearing it for 50 years, and the project has been going on that long with regular improvements in cost and output. Every country is different, but

You've been hearing it for 50 years, and the project has been going on that long with regular improvements in cost and output. Every country is different, but wind and solar have scaled from practically nothing ("proving viability") 20 years ago to a majority of new installs 10 years ago to a significant chunk of all generation now. Wiping out already-built nuclear power is like junking your car two months into a 96-month loan because you don't like the gas bill. Just... why? Sunk costs have generated nearly-free returns. You're still going to pay those costs, in dollars and in CO2, whether you run a nuclear reaction or not. The worst-plausible-case-scenario meltdown has been substantially mitigated with the extant designs, and some of the new designs that are probably never getting built would be difficult to melt down even if you attempted it. Shutting down existing plants as Germany did is a very different proposition than scaling up a nuclear buildout in 2024. Renewables and various grid improvements are just way cheaper and more justifiable in the short term, and have none of the baggage attached, and have none of the need for state support attached. It would take a gargantuan effort right now to mass-produce reactors cheaply enough that they could even begin to compete with renewables.