Is it wise for present Govt to make a costly nuclear deal, instead of investing in wind and solar energy?
You are absolutely right. Nuclear is never profitable (the only reason they want to build more plants is enormous state subsidies). It also never managed to provide a share of electricity big enough to really contribute to the carbon-free energy system (the only exception in the world is France).
It’s also pointless to counter climate change by building more nuclear plants. The Oxford Research Group, a British
nongovernmental organization, disputes the popular perception that nuclear power is a clean energy source. It argues that while nuclear plants may not generate carbon dioxide while they operate, the other steps necessary to produce nuclear power, including the mining of uranium and the storing of waste, result in substantial amounts of carbon dioxide pollution.
And, of course, the problems associated with nuclear weapon proliferation, terrorism, and the nuclear waste which will stay radioactive for thousands years, still without having a solution for permanent storage (as of today) all make nuclear highly unattractive solution both for climate change and for meeting the nation’s energy needs.
So, all in all, if the money presently being poured into support for nukes, would be invested into solar and wind installations around the country, it would benefit America and the world tremendously. But nuclear lobby is very strong (and connect to military, as it provides them with a source to build nuclear weapons), while government doesn’t particularly like the idea of decentralised distributed energy system, based on solar and wind energy production.