> Are there localities in the US where nuclear has beaten the cost-benefit curve? Technically, pretty much everywhere. The health detriment from fossil air pol

> Are there localities in the US where nuclear has beaten the cost-benefit curve? Technically, pretty much everywhere. The health detriment from fossil air pollution (which is not in the markets at all) and the value of low-carbon energy (also not in the markets) means nuclear plants are providing great benefits pretty much everywhere! :) But that's not what you're asking. Coal vs. nuclear have traded off through the years. They both got a lot more regulations and more expensive in the 1970s. Komanoff's book really treats this extremely well. The US plants were not standardized. Places that standardize the plants have a much better time economically. South Korea. France. Russia. Still, I would argue that while nuclear is indeed more expensive than fossil, the fact that it is nearly carbon free and air-pollution free while being 24/7 make it a good deal. All 100% decarbonized sources have extra fees. http://komanoff.net/nuclear_power/ http://komanoff.net/nuclear_power/