[pocw]

The word "neglect" as it is used creates an incorrect framing. But is actually a great word. The whole problem with Nuclear in the US is that we neglect the projects. Our plan around large, long-term nuclear creates a vicious incentive structure. Recouping billion-dollar investments leads to to nuclear plants being run as long and as cheaply as possible.

This is a recipe for disaster. Until we figure that part out, we are correct to hold off building them.

Perhaps a better framing is "We've neglected to figure out an incentive system that allows us to build, safely maintain and safely decommission nuclear projects."

[ncmncm]

More accurately, "There is no scenario in which building nukes produces economically competitive power, so there is no value in a capacity to build them." We will need capacity to decommission them for quite some time to come. Each one decommissioned is a $billion not available to spend adding 10+ GW of renewables, but patching them up would cost even more.