1. A wind farm is built by a private company in order to make a profit selling cheap electricity. A nuclear plant is built with vast amounts of taxpayers money to sell expensive electricity.
2. Nuclear is not dispatchable. That means you need natural gas turbines, hydro or batteries on your grid to provide it. Something that's glossed over by the nuclear fans.
This is not an intrinsic limitation. Naval nuclear reactors can power up to meet demand very rapidly. Civilian nuclear reactors aren't built like this for various reasons, including gas turbines just being cheaper for this purpose.
Naval nuclear reactors use HEU and are horrifically expensive even compared to civilian ones.
Additionally when your capital and fixed O&M costs are higher than renewables with the same net power + batteries, then the costs of your peaking energy skyrocket even further.
Far better to build less nuclear + storage. And then realise that the generation doesn't need to be nuclear in most places.
10 years? You're being generous here. Flamanville has been under construction since 2007, so at least 15 years for construction itself, and anything from 5-10 years for planning, acquiring land, relocation...
No, the best time is to spend the first mover costs on renewables in the 50s through 70s instead and then never build nuclear (or in the 1910s instead of spending them on coal and oil). The second best time is to build renewables now that those costs have been paid over the last 20 years.
Mjhay is correct. Anti-nuclear activists have successfully managed to use the government to stop nuclear energy construction for decades. It is entirely a political problem, not a technical one.
