[d10r]

Maybe it would. Or maybe one of them would have blown up (lets say e.g. on 9.11.2001) and due to bad luck (winds not blowing onto the pacific, but towards densely populated areas during crucial hours) have rendered some major cities inhabitable for years or decades. We will never know.

That said: I agree that replacing nuclear power with coal power is insane. I am for continuing nuclear research and for using nuclear power with designs which are inherently safe if it's cheaper than renewable alternatives at a given location.

[jjoonathan]

Nuclear already provides 20% of our energy, and that with old dangerous plant designs, so we've already seen a healthy slice of that risk. Was avoiding the risks of building new reactors worth pumping our atmosphere full of carbon?

After 40 years of stubbornly refusing to use the green energy at our feet, solar and wind tech finally advanced enough to become practical, and they'll gain marketshare faster than people will give nuclear a fair shake, so they're pretty clearly the way forward.

The carbon-free atmosphere that nuclear could have delivered is just a historic could-have-been at this point, and we'll just have to live with the consequences of our bad decision.