The economics are tied to risk and reward. They capture the realities of nuclear just not being that great as it's advertised to be. So, no. The economics are p

The economics are tied to risk and reward. They capture the realities of nuclear just not being that great as it's advertised to be. So, no. The economics are poor because it really is that bad. My view is that some portion of should be invested on the off chance that the economics might improve if we do. But we should not bet our entire future on that happening any time soon. Balance risk and reward basically. I would say that's more than fairly covered by current budgets and I see no need to burn much more than that. And what we do there could probably be allocated more wisely. For example building more really expensive reactors seems like a waste of both time and money here. You get more energy for less $ with renewables. Given 5 GW of nuclear or 30 or so of renewables, I'll have some renewables. Easy choice. Also for the people that invest in these sort of things apparently. Nuclear is a hard sell to institutional investors. Basically it can't be done without tax payer money right now. Renewables are very easy to finance; even without subsidies.