On strict economic terms, all nuclear research beyond perhaps medical applications was wasteful. Nuclear power is not competitive with coal, and there's still p

On strict economic terms, all nuclear research beyond perhaps medical applications was wasteful. Nuclear power is not competitive with coal, and there's still plenty of coal. Solar and large-scale wind generation research is also similarly contrary to market economics, as neither is competitive with the cheapest available fossil fuels. A pure market would likely follow the "olduvai theory" scenario exactly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_theory By the time fossil fuels became too expensive, there would be no capital available to invest in alternatives as fossil depletion would slow growth and cause investment capital to evaporate. Thermodynamically this is a manifestation of the energy trap: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/ Avoiding these scenarios requires planning rooted in conceptual thought. Markets "think" through price signaling. I see little evidence that markets as a whole can incorporate long-term conceptual thinking into price signals, which means that markets basically can't think conceptually. In fact, price signals on the run-up side of a bubble are deceptive. This is why so many people lose money in them. As the first article says -- many of these peak-ist predictions have not materialized. The reason is probably that we don't have a pure market, and thus we "irrationally" invested in things like nuclear, wind, solar, efficiency, and even enhanced oil/gas recovery that wasn't economic when we funded it. Imagine our energy picture right now with no nuclear, wind, or solar on the table. It remains to be seen whether what we've done is too little too late or not.