The reduced operating emissions take 10+ years to outweigh the enormous construction emissions of nuclear. (Compared to gas.)

Unfortunately, there's still that one guy in the comments trying to say that hypothetical, largely unproven solutions are better for baseload than something that's worked for decades.

Renewables and nuclear are in the same team. It's true that nuclear requires a greater investment of money and time but the returns are greater than renewables. I recommend checking this video about the economics of nuclear energy.

Renewables and nuclear play different sports.

Renewables are better for most of our needs but there is a backbone need of base power. Nuclear is an expensive but clean way to provide that.

France was able to output 2 reactors per year at 1,5 billion of euros per 1000MW for more than 2 decades during the 70's to 90's. The whole French nuclear industry has cost around 130-150 billions between 1960 and 2010, including researches, build and maintenance of France's whole nuclear fleet.

A 1000MW reactor, at current French electricity price and for a 80% capacity factor, generates 1,4 billion of euros worth of electricity per year, for a minimum of 60 years.

Nuclear is not costly, and can absolutely compete by itself, if you don't sabotage it and plan it right.

Base load my friend. We also need steady, reliable, clean power when it's dark and calm. Until we can accomplish seasonal grid storage of renewables, this is the less expensive option.

That's the downside of nuclear. Cost and build time. Upside is it's reliable and carbon-clean.

It's Georgia, though. This is a positive development but it barely begins to make up for how much other ass-backwards stuff there is.

This is the state that elected Marjorie Taylor Greene, keep in mind.

Fission and fusion reactors are really more like in-between renewable and non-renewable. Sure, it relies on materials that are finite, but there is way, way more of that material available in comparison to how much we need.

Making this distinction is necessary to un-spook people who have gone along with the panic induced by bad media and lazy engineering of the past.

The good news - it's online, generating clean power, and hopefully demonstrating the safety and benefits of modern nuclear plants.

The bad news - it's $17B over budget (+120%) and 7 years behind schedule (+100%). Those kind of overages aren't super promising for investors, but perhaps there are enough lessons learned on this one that will help the next one sail a little smoother.

Either way, good to see it can still be done in the US.

Let's play around with the thought of powering all of America with renewables. America’s coal, gas, petroleum and nuclear plants generate a combined baseload power of 405 GWavg, or “gigawatts average.” (Remember, a gigawatt is a thousand megawatts.) Let’s replace all of them with a 50 / 50 mix of onshore wind and CSP (solar), and since our energy needs are constantly growing, let’s round up the total to 500 GWs, which is likely what we’ll need by the time we finish. Some folks say that we should level off or reduce our consumption by conserving and using more efficient devices, which is true in principle. But in practice, human nature is such that whatever energy we save, we just gobble up with more gadgets. So we’d better figure on 500 GWs.

To generate this much energy with 1,000 of our 500 MW renewables farms, we’ll put 500 wind farms in the Midwest (and hope the wind patterns don’t change…) and we’ll put 500 CSP farms in the southwest deserts—all of it on free federal land and hooked into the grid. Aside from whatever branch transmission lines we’ll need (which will be chump change), here’s the lowdown:

Powering the U.S. with 500 wind and 500 CSP farms, at 500 MWavg apiece.

Steel ………………..  503 Million tonnes (5.6 times annual U.S. production)
Concrete …………..  1.57 Billion t (3.2 times annual U.S. production)
CO2 ………………….  3.3 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars  for 2.5 years)
Land …………………  91,000 km2 (302 km / side)

35,135 sq. miles (169 mi / side)

(the size of Indiana)

60-year cost ……… $29.25 Trillion

That’s 29 times the 2014 discretionary federal budget.

If we can convince the wind lobby that they’re outclassed by CSP, we could do the entire project for a lot less, and put the whole enchilada in the desert:

Powering the U.S. with 1,000 CSP farms, producing 500 MWavg apiece.

Steel ……………….   787 Million t (1.6 times annual U.S. production)
Concrete ………….  2.52 Billion t (5.14 times annual U.S. production)
CO2 …………………  3.02 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.3 years)
Land ………………..  63,000 km2 (251 km / side)

24,234 sq. miles (105.8 mi / side)

(the size of West Virginia)

60-year cost ……. $18.45 Trillion

#That’s to 18 times the 2014 federal budget.

Or, we could power the U.S. with 500 AP-1000 reactors.

Rated at 1,117 MWp, and with a reactor’s typical uptime of 90%, an AP-1000 will deliver 1,005 MWav. Five hundred APs will produce 502.5 GWav, replacing all existing U.S. electrical power plants, including our aging fleet of reactors.

The AP-1000 uses 5,800 tonnes of steel, 90,000 tonnes of concrete, with a combined carbon karma of 115,000 t of CO2 that can be paid down in less than 5 days. The entire plant requires 0.04km2, a patch of land just 200 meters on a side, next to an ample body of water for cooling. (Remember, it’s a Gen-3+ reactor. Most Gen-4 reactors won’t need external cooling.) Here’s the digits:

Steel ……….  2.9 Million t (0.5% of W  &  CSP / 0.36% of CSP)
Concrete …  46.5 Million t (3.3% of W  & CSP / 1.8% of CSP)
CO2 ………..  59.8 Million tonnes (2% of W & CSP / 1.5% of CSP)
Land ……….  20.8 km2 (4.56 km / side) (0.028% W & CSP / 0.07% of CSP)

1.95 sq. miles (1.39 miles / side)

(1.5 times the size of Central Park)

60-year cost ……… $2.94 Trillion

#That’s 2.9 times the 2014 federal budget.

Small Modular Reactors may cost a quarter or half again as much, but the buy-in is significantly less, the build-out is much faster (picture jetliners rolling off the assembly line), the resources and CO2 are just as minuscule, and they can be more widely distributed, ensuring the resiliency of the grid with multiple nodes.

And this is without even mentioning MSRs.

Was this project a complete shitshow of sheldon before seen-proportions?

Yes.

Does this mean that we should make the move towards powering the US from 100% renewables instead?

Well if you hate math and logic enough to even consider it, sure. Go ahead.

Even at smaller scales, utility-scale solar plants are $1 per watt.

Solar is being built at 100% speed. We're utilizing all the solar panel manufacturing capacity in the world building and deploying solar right now. There's simply not enough rare earth metals to increase production more. Wind, Hydro, Nuclear and Geothermal are all needed of we want to replace coal and LNG power plants.