I honestly write about nuclear power because I find the discussions around the topic interesting. It is by no means a primary topic in my everyday life, though,

I honestly write about nuclear power because I find the discussions around the topic interesting. It is by no means a primary topic in my everyday life, though, quite the contrary. Having said that, I don't understand what you can be interested in and what it adds to the discussion how I spend my free time, you are invited to argue in context if you want to argue on the merits. Also because I don't think that wasting time looking at my profile is much better. First of all I would like to see some data, I know as far as nuclear is concerned, operating and maintenance costs are only a fraction of the costs in the bill, which in some charts is 10 to 25 percent usually. So even if labor costs were double, there would not be a doubling of prices. Just as if the price of uranium triples, the impact is very small. The staff needed according to this report is 1.5 people/Mw on small plants (the older ones), 1 for large plants, up to 0.7 people for large plants with multiple reactors. And SMRs will serve to lower this number even further. Although the number is highly variable since we are talking about so many different design types, and that especially as more reactors are installed fewer people per Mw are needed. But as you can see the trend is quite negative, both in terms of normal reactors already in operation and future prospects. https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1193_prn.pdf https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1193_prn.p... Do you have any data about solar? And I would like to emphasize that solar alone is not enough, so the staff needed to store some of the energy would also need to be considered (battery?). Otherwise we have to considers nuclear + renewable (my ideal mix), but at that point there would be nothing to argue about probably, since for me it's not a renewable vs. nuclear war, but I consider them both necessary. Finally, just for intellectual honesty, it is worth underlining that one MW of nuclear power cannot in any way be considered on par with one MW of solar power, due to intermittency. I think it is a necessary premise to be able to make any type of comparison between the two. I am not here to consider nuclear energy the best or flawless source of energy, on the contrary I recognize its limits and problems. I am simply here to defend it against those who want to exclude it to decarbonize. Because I am convinced that there is a lot, too much, wishful thinking around renewables. And that this is the first obstacle to being able to decarbonize.