I get all the pro-nuclear arguments here and really wish that I could agree. However, what most commenters are missing is the real reason, nuclear came out of fashion: economics. Without enormous direct and indirect subsidies, nuclear (fission) isnt commercially viable anywhere in the world (even China, where security or biases in the population arguably play a minor role, is not building nuclear at scale!) . Heck, you still can't insure a fission plant; a state guarantee is implicit.
As I wrote in a smililar thread some time ago:
Yes, in theory fission would have been the best option for carbon-free energy. No, in practice humanity never figured out how to safely and efficiently use this power source and now renewables are a way safer and cheaper bet. You won't find any objective economic analysis (that incorporates such indirect subsidies as the implicit state guarantee and realistic building and waste handling/storing costs) that can show otherwise. Renewables are already significantly cheaper, even if you incorporate necessary storage costs or DCS grids. Nuclear is only barely competitive when dismissing everything except the direct construction and operation costs which is very misleading.
As I wrote in a smililar thread some time ago: Yes, in theory fission would have been the best option for carbon-free energy. No, in practice humanity never figured out how to safely and efficiently use this power source and now renewables are a way safer and cheaper bet. You won't find any objective economic analysis (that incorporates such indirect subsidies as the implicit state guarantee and realistic building and waste handling/storing costs) that can show otherwise. Renewables are already significantly cheaper, even if you incorporate necessary storage costs or DCS grids. Nuclear is only barely competitive when dismissing everything except the direct construction and operation costs which is very misleading.