4 ms·

I guess we differ in that you call generating 20% of the energy in the USA "not a success" lol

• toss1 3y ago
  Yikes. I specifically said it was a success. But after 2/3 of a century, nuclear has clearly failed to attain the level of success of other technologies, and it's success has been capped. Moreover, nuclear is now on a clear and accelerating decline. The peak was 1995, producing 20.1% of US power, and it's now fallen from 19.7% to 18.2% in the last two years. I wish nuclear had enjoyed more success; it still may with new smaller-scale and inherently safe technologies. But the current cost profile and construction profile is so far out of line with the continually-rapidly-declining-costs of competing solar and wind technologies, that current nuclear is only falling further behind. To build a nuclear plant vs solar or wind requires far more capital, has a far longer permitting process and construction process before a return on capital can even begin, and a far more costly end-of-life phase (notice we're not even mentioning the usual highlights of nuclear waste disposal, containment, and nuclear material proliferation). Nuclear has simply become an unmanageable option. So, considering that it's success was limited, and is now in decline with no end in sight, how is it unfair to characterize it as "failing to make the grade"?