Try making wind farms abide the same siesmic requirements and end of life plans that we hold nuclear to. They would become wildly expensive and uneconomical.
Swap regulatory structures between wind and nuclear, wait two decades and you’ll see a bunch of NYT articles talking about how toxic it is for workers and the environment to be sawing fiberglass wind turbine blades into pieces to dump in a landfill when they are no longer economically viable due to asinine regulations.
I also find the arguement that we should put the same regulations on solar wind as on nuclear weird. The consequences of a failure is many orders of magnitude different, the considerations when decommissioning are vastly different etc..
Incorrect. The Russians, Chinese, French, Koreans et. al. have wildly different regulatory burdens and they can't do it either. The PRC bought some Westinghouse AP1000s, stole the design, tried to copy, ended up way late and way over budget.
When you dig into it they get loan guarantees, favoritism, and using accounting tricks like wishing away decommissioning costs by claiming reactors will be working for 60 or even 100 years.
The US DOE basically supports the US nuclear power industry, budget wise.
Advocates always point out the very low death rate from nuclear accidents (true) but fall silent on the cost of making 150 square km of Japan uninhabitable.
TL:DR; Nuclear has many benefits over over the carbon club but being cheaper is not one of them.