New EPR reactors will carve a learning and regulation route that will only cost greatly once. South Korea doesn't have too much trouble affording reactors based on cookie-cutter rather than bespoke designs. In any case, a 60-80 year life over which to amortize capex is ignored by greenies, who are really pushing the cost issue now as they realise they're losing on their other exaggerated bases for opposing nuclear power. France, China, India et al don't seem to be listening to the cost argument, e.g., http://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-nuclear-epr/france-asks-edf-to-prepare-to-build-6-epr-reactors-in-15-years-le-monde-idUSKBN1WT27T

Coal-stations can be kept going for decades with continuous upgrading and overhaul, or new HELE will be cheaper than renewables plus gas, with not much more emissions, until nuclear reigns, which will be soon enough once the ban is lifted. Why build renewables that will not be renewed themselves once load-following nuclear capacity, contingent for their 100% failure, are built? After this it wouldn't be viable to maintain renewables or gas-plants for efficiency, not even to remove the dust from solar panels

Opposing arguments are becoming more shrill and tenuous as positive public perception of nuclear is growing in response to children's calls (Greta and XR crowds) to do something effective http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8144-nuclear-power-in-australia-september-2019-201910070349

Taswegian is correct, hydrogen is a mug's game. The requirement to use super high pressure to store hydrogen combined with it being super explosive means that any vehicle is a potential bomb.

Similarly for fixed installations, batteries are now far more efficient.

Aidan, "And is a government subsidy really so bad as a short term policy?" Yes most definitely.

When ever governments try to pick winners they always rely on academics & bureaucrats for advice. Have you ever seen any of either group with enough general knowledge or common sense to know which way is up, let alone the right choice?