This. We need nuclear to keep the base load green. Wind and solar need batteries to be base load providers. Building out both battery and renewable infrastructure at the same time is a tall order.

Yeah this is what most people are not getting in this whole debate. That and the fact that it's really costly to transmit electricity over long distances, even at extremely high voltages.

The best solution is a bunch of smallish nuclear reactors spread out over the continent for base power production, wind/solar/hydro (is wave electricity a thing? I remember it was discussed a bunch of years ago in relation to green production) wherever those make sense, and high voltage transmission lines to allow load balancing.

But we don't have that, and it takes a long time to build so we should get started now, but instead they will say "oh we should have built that 20 years ago now it's too late"... :(

The surprising thing is that with a rare exceptions (like in Finland) people who have money to invest don't believe that investing in nuclear power will actually make them a profit.

We know the price of CO2 will just go up and up. We know how hard it is to create a base load with wind/solar and storage.

Yet nobody with money believes it is worth investing in nuclear.

Of course, looking at Hinkley Point C, Olkiluoto, Flamanville makes it very clear why nobody wants to invest in nuclear power.

I think the biggest reason is public opinion (by idiots who don't know what they are talking about and just think nuclear bad because they've been conditioned to think so by decades of misinformation) driving politics in the wrong directions possibly meaning that any plants built may be forced to shut down before they've been operational long enough to offset the construction costs and become profitable.