I'm with you, definitely going to be good. Wind, at least in the EU, is a financial disaster for anyone who gets into that at this point. Solar has its place, but for the insane amount of energy needed, you only have fossil, nuclear, or hydroelectric to choose from IMO. At least if you want to have a predictable energy price and reliable production. People will quickly grow weary of brown-outs and astronomical bills for electricity.
Some recent examples:
Vogtle 3 and 4 (U.S.): Total cost $35 billion for 2.2 GW ($16 billion/GW). Overnight costs ~$8,000/kWe, with financing nearly doubling the total due to delays (14+ years). Construction ~60%, financing ~35%.
Hinkley Point C (UK): Estimated £32 billion (€44 billion) for 3.2 GW (~£10 billion/GW). Construction ~65%, financing ~25%, with delays pushing costs up.
Flamanville 3 (France): €13.2 billion for 1.65 GW (~€8 billion/GW). Construction ~70%, financing ~20%, despite 17-year timeline.
Barakah 1–4 (UAE): $24 billion for 5.6 GW (~$4.3 billion/GW). South Korean design, shorter timeline (16 years for 4 units), lower labor costs; construction ~75%, financing ~15%
And Netherlands-Specific Factors:
The Dutch plan for 9.6 GWe by 2050 (e.g., four 2.4 GW reactors) has an estimated capital cost of ~€10 billion per GW in high-cost scenarios.
Borssele’s existing infrastructure may reduce site preparation costs, but public acceptance and regulatory hurdles could inflate pre-construction costs.
Government involvement (e.g., €14 billion fund, potential minority equity stakes) aims to lower financing costs, possibly aligning with Finland’s Mankala model, where industrial consumers share risks.
Market Data 
Markets 
