Yeah, cheaper, way cheaper, because the lifetime of modern reactors is 3X longer than a new solar installation. and THAT assumes that the solar install doesnt get hit by a hurricane, dust storm, or hail storm.
just because one install went way out of budget doesnt mean they all do. I mean Tonopah cost a billion dollars for a measly 110Mw that is intermittent, never mind the 500 million in fees and lawsuits.
nuclear, even without considering the extreme advantage of long lifetimes is in range or cheaper than all other sources of energy.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
How many people died from Chernobyl or Fukushima? go look it up.
Wind and hydro are far greater killers than Nuclear.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
Yeah, nukes are pretty earthquake proof. Are wind and solar weather proof?
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/hurricane-maria-damages-102-billion-surpassed-only-katrina
Will we see more drastic weather in the future or less?
Nuclear waste is not waste. It is only future fuel as new reactors come on line. Current nuke tech only uses 4% of the energy available in the uranium.
Future fuel is stored in dry casks. You can stand outside of one and eat a banana and get more of a radiation dose from the banana.
Storage is earthquake, flood, and weather proof, and are being further improved for even bigger earthquakes and sabotage.
Even in Italy, nuclear fuel (new and spent) is monitored internationally by the IAEA because everyone is terrified it will be stolen to create weapons. Please find a single of example of waste being stolen.
You are speaking from fear, not knowledge.
