> If new nuclear was cheap and quick, why are the recently proposed western subsidies tens of billions per reactor?

They aren't, and some guarantees are necessary, because VEE subsidies have dramatically distorted the markets. Even the cheapest producer cannot compete with subsidized overproduction that drives prices to zero or negative, with the government picking up the decidedly non-zero cost for just those producers that are causing the problem.

And you are projecting the reality of VEE subsidies onto nuclear.

I asked Google AI if subsidies for intermittent renewables in Germany will fall:

Total volatile renewable energy (VRE) subsidies in Germany are projected to rise significantly in the short-to-medium term (peaking around 2029 at over €22 billion), driven by falling wholesale electricity prices and legacy contract obligations.

In the long term, direct generation subsidies are legally structured to fall as older contracts expire, but the total public financial burden will likely remain high or shift into different mechanisms—such as grid infrastructure funding, battery storage incentives, and backup power plant strategies—to keep the structurally unprofitable intermittent energy system viable.

What are you even saying?

Renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world. They aren't needed anymore.

And now you've shifted the goalposts again. First, nuclear was supposedly cheap and quick. Now it needs enormous government guarantees because renewables have somehow "distorted" the market.

So which way is it? Is new nuclear cheap and competitive, or does it need taxpayers to absorb its financial risks?

You can't have it both ways.

Why should we waste our limited resources on ruinously expensive new nuclear that won't deliver meaningful decarbonization?

The question remains unanswered:

Poland. €100 billion. 2026. What cuts the most cumulative CO2, fastest?