It is. It's ridiculously cheap. It's only the regulations and bureaucracy surrounding it that make it so expensive. It goes beyond safety and into unreasonable requirements spawned by decades of attempts to appease NIMBYS whos entire knowledge of "nuclear" is restricted bombs and Chernobyl. There are also the countless officials and agencies who created needless red tape to benefit themselves, or had a vested interest in seeing nuclear fail.

Let me be ABUNDANTLY clear: safety regulations and red tape ARE good. Holy shit, please do not think I am arguing against them wholesale. But regulations on nuclear plants go so far beyond what is actually needed that it balloons costs and time-frames to multitudes of what they should be.

It feels completely disingenuous to use those excess costs to argue that nuclear is expensive, because they are entirely our own fault that they're there. It's like saying running a mile is too painful, but then it turns out you shoot yourself in the leg every time before you try. The issue isn't running the mile, it's that you choose to shoot yourself in the leg. You shouldn't be able to use that to argue against running a mile.

The 90 year estimate was only for conventional mining of identified reserves. It doesn’t account for the total terrestrial values which increases the number to 200 years.

Adding seawater extraction it increases to 60,000 years. Adding fast breeder technology on top of that increases it to BILLIONS of years.

And this doesn’t even account for the advancements in switching to thorium, which with current identified supplies would last thousands of years.