Nuclear energy is great except for time and to some degree cost [1]. Other factors like waste disposal more relevant to some countries than others and are a universally ignored problem in general - but it's not as bad as climate change so let's not even talk about this. We want to avoid climate change first and foremost after all.

The problem really is that time is of the essence now and it simply takes way too long to build a new plant. Cost isn't great at all, they will never be profitable and insurance is neck breaking, but it can be managed. If any of these issues currently do exist with renewables, they are continuously waning.

Two recent nuclear projects:

- Olkiluoto Unit 3 (EPR) in Finland. Projected cost: €3 billion / Real cost: ~€11 billion (4x) / Delay: 13 years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

- Flamanville Unit 3 (EPR) in France. Projected cost: €3.3 billion / Real cost: €19.1 billion (6x) / Delay: currently 10 years, no start in sight (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...)

It doesn't look much better in other countries most of the time [2], China is possibly an exception due to, let's say, different handling of safety and other topics... In any case, nuclear is quite an expensive energy source [3] on top of critical time issues in construction and commission [4].

In the time it takes to build new nuclear power (10-15 years) technology and cost of renewable energy are projected to become much more favorable and then we gain several things:

- inherent safety

- decentralization

- stable cost (less dependence on imported resources such as uranium)

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea...

[3] https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...