> It's more expensive than the alternatives, including wind and solar. You're probably looking at best-case vs. worst-case here. The expense of getting suffici

> It's more expensive than the alternatives, including wind and solar. You're probably looking at best-case vs. worst-case here. The expense of getting sufficient wind power in areas without wind or solar power in low-light areas can get pretty crazy. And a large portion of the expense of nuclear power is regulatory hurdles we impose on it. > Its failure modes have so much more potential to be catastrophic than the alternatives. The success mode of the current most popular alternative (fossil fuels) has proven much more catastrophic. As for other things like wind and solar power, I think a lot of people are unconvinced that it's fair to call them "alternatives" yet. Nuclear has proven itself as a good general-purpose solution and they have not, and nuclear seems to be a lot better than what we are doing now.