[crdoconnor]

Reliable and predictable at 2x the cost.

Saving 50% on generation gives you a lot of options in terms of demand shaping and storage.

It's also far, far less capital intensive and doesn't require an uncapped disaster insurance subsidy from the taxpayer.

[Scea91]

1) Increased investment in nuclear energetics should bring the cost down

2) 2x cost for these attributes does not seem particularly bad to me.

3) I am not aware of any production ready options that have been deployed at scale somewhere. I know there are a lot of ideas however. If you have time can you please point me to the most promising ones? I am genuinely interested.

[bildung]

Nuclear is way too expensive, it essentially has lost. It will certainly will play a part for decades, but e.g. wind turbine parks are already at the same price level and have none of the disadvantages of nuclear. Plus several wind parks in a grid work just fine as base load providers, see e.g. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.475...

[crdoconnor]

Nuclear has shown no particular inclination to come down in price whereas renewables have.

It's just not cost effective without both massive implicit and explicit government subsidies.

Renewables are cost effective now and will only become more so.