If you are concerned that nuclear is too short sighted at 50 years plant life then what concerns, if any, do you hold for wind or solar? Especially when wind, currently, has a 'service life' of 30years (on average), of which only the tower and foundation last the whole 30 years. Everything else requires replacement or maintenance in that time.
I know nuclear will have parts replaced etc etc, however currently, lifespan is better for nuclear, as is the impact on the environment. Plus just practically, its going to be cheaper, easier, and safer to service a nuclear power plant than it is to service a wind turbine.
I should mention Im always referencing ocean bound wind as that is what they are pitching in my specific state, and it's the thing i have read up on. Im sure land based is different. But it isnt relevant to my area.
