The alternative isn't carbon emission, the alternative is far cheaper wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, battery storage (both lithium and many others)

The only question is if nuclear can offer something compelling to keep it in the mix. We have roughly 100 1GW of nuclear reactors in the US that are reaching end of life, and 90% of those communities would like to see replacements to keep the jobs in town. However, nobody will ever invest in a project that looks like Vogtle, due to the cost. Unfortunately, recent projects in France, Finland, and the UK all look quite similar in cost of dollars and time.

Which is to say, that nuclear will not be able to provide a climate solution at all. It's too late, we can not even build 100 rectors in the next 15 years to replace what needs to be retired!

If nuclear advocates want more nuclear, they need to focus on the details and the engineering and the management, not merely rah-rah for the tech. The devil is in the details, and projects like Vogtle have virtually guaranteed that nuclear will not be built in the US in quantity for at least a generation.

The only reason Vogtle was built was because of the fixed price contract Westinghouse signed. Just as in the first nuclear buildout in the 1960s, fixed price contracts revealed themselves to be ruinous for the NPP builder.

No utility going forward is going to sign a contract that puts them on the hook for cost escalation (which turned out to be this contract too, once Westinghouse went bankrupt.)

And EDF learned the hard way at Olkiluoto about saying they can build something at a specified price.

The only way for nuclear or be built in advanced economies is to have some government provide subsidies far beyond what renewables have ever reviewed. And at least with renewables there was the goal of making it cheaper for the next round of production. We don't that get that benefit when we throw an extra $10B at a nuclear build.