So... if we are going to save the world from the evil CO2 according to the environmental lobby's plan, it's okay to spend uncountable billions of dollars on it, change our entire standard and way of life, and so on. No cost is too high, no idea too risky. These are the guys who actively advocate sending lenses into space that will substantially reduce the levels of incoming sunlight, cover the glaciers over huge areas, outlaw private transportation, and so on.
But, if we are actually trying to speak for nuclear power, then every little step along the way has to be economically feasible RIGHT NOW or else it is useless?
And, even suggesting those costs be accepted as part of the solution to the climate crisis, that is socialism?
Besides the high costs of building power plants, there are other issues (without tackling the biggest elephant in the room: dealing with the waste). There are long construction periods, for example, even without any hitches in the process; just look at what is happening with the Olkiluoto plant in Finland.
Nuclear power plants are good at providing basic energy output but deal badly with fluctuations in demand. It's not possible to just shut one down or start it up again.
That leads to problems with cooling. Nuclear power plants use natural water sources for that purpose. However, the hotter the water gets due to rising temperatures - especially in summer -, the more troubles arise to keep the reactors cool. In recent years, France had to shut down several plants because they were not able to keep the temperatures down.