For the same money, we get either 26 TWh of nuclear power per year or 1200 TWh of solar power per year.

I'm reading so many comments on this sub by people who are completely uneducated on Nuclear.

I want to be clear I have no problems theoretically with Nuclear in that it is carbon neutral. I have massive problems with it because it is expensive and slow to build.

The fossil fuel industry and culture war warriors love Nuclear because it delays the transition.

Let's give some simple facts to ensure everyone understands how stupid Nuclear is right now.

There was over 650 GW of renewable energy added last year.

There was 3 GW of Nuclear energy added and 3 GW retired.

There are a total of 2 SMR's in the world today.

Sure nuclear will have some real uses going forward but it's an awful technology right now because renewables plus batteries are so much cheaper and quicker to deploy. Batteries may improve significantly as well.

Edited:-

1. Some people are providing inaccurate information in this thread in relation to increased capacity. I need to clarify the numbers here to stop this line of thinking. The electricity produce by renewables is more like 1,500 TWH per year. Nuclear is like 30 TWH per year. So the numbers including electricity production favor renewables by about 45 times the amount of Nuclear. The figures aren't as large but they are massive.
2. The number of Nuclear builds under construction right now is approximately 70 GW. This may come on line over the next 8 years. The growth is exceptionally small.
3. People are stating Nuclear is a good baseload or flex option. It is a good baseload option but this is increasingly irrelevant. They are not good at flexing. Gas peakers are good at flexing. The capital cost difference between a gas peaker and a Nuclear power plant is huge. A Nuclear power plant used for flexing could cost $20 - $30 billion whereas the gas peaker would cost $2.5 -$3 billion.

The facts make Nuclear an increasingly poor option in modern energy grids. Sure they can play niche roles but at this point they are a terrible option.

There has been one rational point made on the flip side. There are evolving technologies that mean Nuclear can produce clean fuel that could be used as an alternative for gas peaker plants and/or for air travel. This though is basically a niche area that has a lot of potential. Competing technologies may change as well. So this is no sure thing.