I doubt it. Even if the ORNL MSR reactor got maximum funding, we averted the safety panic from three mile island, and were effectively making no nuclear waste t

I doubt it. Even if the ORNL MSR reactor got maximum funding, we averted the safety panic from three mile island, and were effectively making no nuclear waste the economics still probably can't compete with current wind/solar. The scary prospect for all forms of energy is that wind and solar likely have a lot of runway, as does grid storage. Combined wind/solar + grid storage will fall under combined cycle natural gas this year. Just to emphasize, combined cycle natural gas exceeds the carnot efficiency of a single stage combustion with additional heat cycles. That means it basically has maximized the physics of extracting energy from using natural gas. In the US natural gas is also basically as low as can practically be priced because it is a waste byproduct of the bakken shale in the Dakotas. Natural gas beats all other fossil fuels and nuclear by quite a lot. And it CANNOT compete with wind/solar. Solar still has numerous opportunities to drop between perovskites and some theoretical cheap multijunction manufacutring. Grid storage will see sodium-sulfur or some other cheap/dense battery tech in the next 10 years in addition to the steady improvement of sodium-ion and LFP chemistries already in mass production. I would really really like to see a scalable cheap nuke plant that is only twice as expensive as solar/wind. But that massive 10s of billions in research and investment would have needed to start in the 1990s. And IMO would have been shunted to the same failed solid fuel rod designs rather than MSR or some other "radical" reactor design. Nuclear will simply never be economically viable in the foreseeable 30 years. And neither will fusion.