Nuclear was given the benefit of the doubt for decades. It failed. In particular, projections of its cost turned out to be self-serving lies.

People get testy when they've been victims of fraud. Just ask the ratepayers in Georgia and South Carolina.

Meanwhile France is 80% nuclear power mix, and contained costs by building fleets of similar reactors. US construction industry is the issue here.

France's costs were always opaque, since they mixed the civilian and military nuclear programs.

In any case, France can not now build reactors cheaply. The recent attempts have experienced disastrous cost overruns (a factor of 3x for Flamanville). New nuclear has failed there just like it failed here in the US.

It's the unavoidable up front subsidy envy. That, and fears of statist controls obligated by unimaginable risks. The actual risks experienced being lower except when corporate greed behaviour goes Fukushima.

Actual power cost and deaths per gigawatts? Unbeatable. I used to hate on nuclear, I changed my mind. End the lawsuits and let's get building again.

* > Actual power cost and deaths per gigawatts? Unbeatable.*

Power costs of nuclear plants seem to be on the expensive side of things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Depending on the study, it's either comparable to wind or has substantially higher costs than wind.

You can't command wind. Which makes this cost per watt comparison pointless. Need to include storage.

Those numbers obviously compare price per actually produced GWh.

Do you really think hordes of scientists around the globe do dozens of studies and have never thought about a point as trivial as this?

Corporate greed and incompetence seem to be constants though.