> It's more like nuclear but without the emotional baggage.
... and crazy costs (construction, maintenance, decomissioning, waste disposal, much of it obfuscated under general energy budgets, de facto government subsidy, or optimistic amortization).
The maintenance is fairly low. Decommissioning and waste disposal are already included as a small fuel surcharge.
The costs for construction are very high, for one main reason: time. Due to inexperienced contractors, legal battles, etc, it often takes a decade or more to finish a nuclear plant which DRAMATICALLY increases costs and reduces the option value. But all that could be dramatically reduced, in principle, without sacrificing safety or even needing dramatically new designs. Nuclear innovation really needs to focus on the construction process. Get that down to 2 years or less, and the cost problem will be solved.
Decommissioning goes over budget too. Fukushima was partly a result of people not wanting to swallow the decomissioning cost, preferring to extend the nuclear reactor's life beyond what they probably should have. Waste disposal is not a solved problem.
Are you aware of the Westinghouse bankruptcy due to nuclear projects, possibly taking Toshiba under with them?
... and crazy costs (construction, maintenance, decomissioning, waste disposal, much of it obfuscated under general energy budgets, de facto government subsidy, or optimistic amortization).