>We are done when the answer is yes on all of those, and then the market will find out what technology works and what doesn't. The market can only really work

>We are done when the answer is yes on all of those, and then the market will find out what technology works and what doesn't. The market can only really work when it's allowed to. Between the subsidies, perverse incentives and outright FUD being spread around I doubt there is a market that will solve this automatically. It's going to have to be fought for. Perfect example - I was in San Diego in the mid 90's. There was a project to recycle wastewater to use for irrigation and eventually work back into the water supply. Some news organization sensationalized it - dubbed it "Toilet to tap", got everyone riled up and the community voted it down. All my co-workers were congratulating themselves on not drinking toilet water until I pointed out the majority of water they were using to make the coffee they were drinking came out of the Colorado River. Towards the end of the Colorado River. They were already drinking "toilet water". Bah. I also predicted since we were in a desert, the project would happen anyway within 20 years. I was wrong, it ended up being within 7 and about four times the cost to boot. So yeah, I see much of the consternation around nuclear in the same light. It's going to happen sooner or later, and later always costs more. Speaking of higher costs - in the meantime we continue to burn fossil fuels which means we are still emitting significant amounts of CO2. If you are really concerned about CO2 being existence threatening, we should be doing nuclear, solar, wind and whatever else we can throw at the problem - not sitting around arguing what the "best" is while the house is still on fire.