It wouldn't be any better, because if plants had been built decades ago, they wouldn't be able to be competitive anymore, would keep running a deficit, and would depress the economy and public finances like the white elephants they are, and take away means to transition to renewables.

You are comparing capacity costs (what it costs to deploy). What you pay are utilization costs (total cost). By total cost, NPPs are the cheapest form of power we have even with all the lawsuits. About $0.04/kwh vs $0.14/kwh for renewables. And that's before the unreliability of renewables are accounted for. That's why the countries with lots of nuclear have cheap power and the ones with lots of renewables have expensive power. If what you say were true, it would be reversed. Also, the countries with lots of NPPs have cleaner grids than countries with lots of renewables. What you are saying is just factually false.

Nuclear power runs at night.

Yeah so does wind which is where the UK gets most of its power

It’s not windy 24/7, there are many days of low wind. You still need to take that into account, which luckily the govt are.

https://storelectric.com/dunkelflaute-energy-storage/

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/677bc80399c93...