We think of “energy invested” as having an environmental cost, and of course that’s true when it comes from polluting fossil sources.

But as grids get cleaner, and transport vehicles and construction equipment are electrified, this is no longer such a concern. Eventually we’re just using clean energy to build more clean energy - a virtuous cycle!

New low-carbon concrete formulas and steel production technology are also needed, of course, since these are a major source of emissions whether for a nuclear plant or wind farm.

Then, why is it not economically viable when fairly competing with solar and wind energy? Because it requires much more subsidies and nuclear developers cannot even bear the financial risks of their projects, as one would expect from a economically viable technology.

The sibling post seems to indicate otherwise though and mentions they're about the same? Any idea where that difference in numbers come from?