The article mentions SMRs and other advanced nuclear power reactor designs that are still ridiculously far from commercial reality: > The advanced reactor clos

The article mentions SMRs and other advanced nuclear power reactor designs that are still ridiculously far from commercial reality: > The advanced reactor closest to market in the U.S. is being developed by NuScale, which has a nonbinding agreement to build a first-of-its-kind SMR project in Idaho. The company has already raised its projected power cost from $58 per megawatt-hour to $89, even though it’s still years away from even beginning construction. The first module at the plant is set to begin commercial operation in December 2029, NuScale says, but nuclear project timelines are inevitably Pollyannaish and wildly off-base. Compare the $/MWh costs to other power sources [1]. I am not yet convinced nuclear power will ever be economic but I'd like to be wrong. For fission power in particular, I will point to one fact that turns me against it. And that is the Price-Anderson Act [2]. This is a Congressional limit on absolute liability (per-plant and total). It's a complex system of industry insurance not too dissimilar to the FDIC insurance premiums. Ultimately though the government limits liability and would ultimately have to pay anything in excess of that anyway. And the more plants you have the more pressure and lobbying you'll get to further limit that liability and shift all potential accident costs to the taxpayer. Companies are just terrible at managing long-term low-probability risk. We see this time and time again. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source [2]: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821#:~:text=Total%20liability%20for%20reactors%20under,and%20c https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10821#:~:te....).