I used to be pro Nuclear, nowadays I feel that all the people looking at the benefits of Nuclear miss a few big things. They overestimate the maturity of the te

I used to be pro Nuclear, nowadays I feel that all the people looking at the benefits of Nuclear miss a few big things. They overestimate the maturity of the tech (x1000 for the maturity of the materials development in the designs as opposed to the Nuclear reaction itself), far understate the risks and pretty much ignore the economics. And by economics I include operating costs, but also rarely discussed: the ability of private markets to finance, build, and start pulling profits from a power project in a reasonable time-frame. If that second part isn't possible, then building lots of anything isn't going to happen easily. There is a big difference in 40 x1 billion projects and one 40 billion project - and one way that plays out is in the likelihood of any project getting spun up and succeeding even if all other things are equal. But all other thing are not equal, in operating costs, Nuclear is less economically productive than wind energy by far, and soon solar (or perhaps already more-expensive when one figures in overruns, gov't support, etc..). There is a point in that Nuclear can provide "baseload", but it's fairly incompatible with varying renewable supply as it doesn't seem to cycle up or down fast enough to be really be paired with a renewable supply. Energy storage, while also being immature, is likely to improve much more rapidly than the relative slow design development of Nuclear tech. I don't want to be unnecessarily negative regarding Nuclear (and am excited about potential future fusion developments - esp the small scale designs), but I think there's a lot more holding Nuclear back than simply anti-nuclear activism.