> cherry pick the one study from the nuclear energy agency The IEA is the International Energy Agency. It deals with energy in general. https://en.wikipedia.

> cherry pick the one study from the nuclear energy agency The IEA is the International Energy Agency. It deals with energy in general. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency You are thinking of the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Different agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Ag... What you describe as "consensus" is nothing of the sort. And of course you cite mostly opinion pieces. The one actual "study" that compares costs is ... drumroll... Lazard. I was waiting for that one. If you actually read the study, you will find that they did not actually look at the cost of nuclear power. It even says so in the footnotes. They weren't interested in the cost of nuclear for that study, and so used the cost of Vogtle (the most expensive reactors to date) as a stand-in. If you don't believe me, believe the vice-chairman of Lazard who is responsible for that study “We do not, in this study, try to cost out new nuclear” (2:35) “We think nuclear will be a big part of the future” (2:47) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HVh_Fx6LQ