It takes far, far more resources to build out wind and solar than nuclear. The obstacles to nuclear are primarily political, regulatory, and psychological. Ther

It takes far, far more resources to build out wind and solar than nuclear. The obstacles to nuclear are primarily political, regulatory, and psychological. There actually isn't a hell of a lot of money to be made in nuclear. The real reason that wind and solar are taking off is a successful market intervention from governments to spur investments there and make it profitable. But make no mistake, wind and solar are a massive ecological boondoggle. They do more environmental damage than good, and they simply do not displace fossil fuel sources of energy, just add. Hell, the data is right in the first set of charts in the article--gas is displacing everything else, but still growing faster than coal is shrinking. This basically means that renewables are just additional build-out. Which is where people move the goalposts and talk about how they supposedly displaced new coal or gas--which they clearly did not. No, we should have invested in nuclear power in the 1950s. We'd be probably fine today. Our choice now is: do we reduce the energy intensity of our economies and completely displace all of our fossil fuels with nuclear, or do we go over the cliff? As I said in my OP, we're going over the cliff.