Pretty disappointing! It eventually does get around to finding the right critique: > the success of nuclear power is much more about project management, financ

Pretty disappointing! It eventually does get around to finding the right critique: > the success of nuclear power is much more about project management, financing, and policy than it is cutting-edge engineering or safety. But suppose you optimize the hell out of that, then what do you get? Maybe, just maybe back to 1960s costs, at the very best. That's not good enough. We need more advanced tech that delivers energy more cheaply. Defining "efficiency" as MWh/acre is just plain silly, and greatly reduces the credibility of the article. What a useless metric, unrelated to economics, that shows a gaping hole in the analysis. Its just boosterism because except for the useless metric, there's nothing appealing about nuclear as a power generation tech, in its current forms. Given a bet between Web3 and nuclear as foundational future techs, would pick Web3 in a heart beat, and let me tell you just how little I believed that silly pitch when a16z was making it... much less now!