> Nobody builds a nuclear plant because its profitable or cost effective.

This just isn't true.

Solar and wind power have failed disastrously in Germany, to the extent that they have to now cut back on wind power and start building coal fired plants, because they were stupid enough to turn off their nuclear facilities.

If we're to believe https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-ag... then the Germans didn't quite "have to [...] start building coal fired plants", but they have trouble stopping people from building more coal fired plants, because that is still economically lucrative.

No. They have to have fossil plants because electricity cannot be stored effectively, except in very mountainous countries with enough hydroelectric dams, like Norway or Costa Rica. Since electricity cannot be stored, it has to be manufactured when required. People require electricity at night or on calm days when the wind is not blowing, and they often don't require as much electricity as can be produced at the right time. Since the Germans turned off their nuclear plants, to make that electricity, they had to build more fossil plants.

So sell the solar generated energy to Norway via the existing DC link and upgrade the link as necessary. Also upgrade the east-west electricity distribution system and sell the energy to neighbours who are in the dark.

And lastly, if electric cars are implemented properly they can be used for peak shedding. See, for instance, https://www.techcentral.co.za/how-electric-cars-could-change..., https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/07/bmws-plan-to-..., and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/20/electric....

> Since electricity cannot be stored,

That should be 'Since electricity cannot currently be cost effectively stored," It is a matter of economics not natural law.

> 'Since electricity cannot currently be cost effectively stored," It is a matter of economics not natural law.

What I meant should be obvious to someone who read my entire reply. Selectively quoting part of it and then making a counter-claim using the quote as a strawman argument shows that you are not a person to be taken seriously.

While I take your point on Germany, it is also true that modern construction of nuclear plants is disastrous financially.

Okay well on page 164 (https://www.withouthotair.com/c24/page_164.shtml) MacKay writes: "If fast reactors are 60 times more efficient, the same extraction of ocean uranium could deliver 420 kWh per day per person." Granted, this depends on fast breeder reactors and ocean extraction of uranium, but those are both experimentally proven technologies.

Why wouldn't we adopt the only energy source that has been shown to scale to provide the entire world with Western levels of energy for 1,000 years?

Nuclear plants go up in decades, solar and wind generators go up in months.

Nuclear all-in costs (about 10-20 cents per kwh) are lower then most sources, and the operating costs beat everything but wind. Big problem is cost overruns.

Are there sources for this which include externalities like mining and producing the fuel?