This is what I tell them pro-nuclearists, who mostly, in my circles, tend to be engineers or tech-savy minds with a better-is-better mindset: Nuclear is the ma

This is what I tell them pro-nuclearists, who mostly, in my circles, tend to be engineers or tech-savy minds with a better-is-better mindset: Nuclear is the mainframe. Let's just concede, for the sake of argument: the hands-down better, more reliable tech. Renewables is the distributed. Worse but worse-is-better [1]. Setup and investment is incremental. Take down and/or upgrading is also simpler. There's huge traction in the battery and renewable tech ecossystem. The lower entry barrier makes it a competitive, highly decentralized market where costs are going down fast. There are "killer apps" and a constant flow of innovation happening everywhere else too, outside of power generation: from cars, to airplanes to homes. And it's all that swarm, and not a single "because it's better", that makes the renewable+battery duo the winner. Maybe nuclear could have been that distributed, pop energy too, but the fact today, for various well-known reasons (regulation, monopoly, distrust...) it isn't. And, by the looks of it, it probably won't be in the future. Nuclear failed to capture the traction in the West for decades already. Just like the IBM mainframe it's not going away, and it's a perfectly good solution for some people (banks for the mainframe, China for nuclear in this metaphore). But most of us are heading into a "cloud" of multi-tiered renewable tech solutions and nothing can stop it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better