The killer for nuclear is the expense and the non-zero risk of catastrophe. No one has a real plan to deal with the costs (it's a very large problem with polit

The killer for nuclear is the expense and the non-zero risk of catastrophe. No one has a real plan to deal with the costs (it's a very large problem with political issues around waste costs). Modular reactors might help with this (small or not) but who wants to spend a trillion £/$/Euros to find out they don't? Most people insist on pretending the costs aren't prohibitive and that's not really a viable solution. No one has a real plan to deal with risks: * like it or not you cannot compare all risks on a simple probabilitycost basis. People treat a 1/1mil chance they will lose their homes more seriously than a 1/10 chance they will get lung cancer in 40 years. the underlying issues are not technological, they're organisational and political (We've had safe reactor designs for decades, then someone comes along and disables all the safety features to get 5% more power to secure their quarterly bonus). So you cannot solve them with a redesign at a tech level.