The majority of negative economics with nuclear are from asinine policy decisions as well as tilted markets with subsidies for other sources. Lithium reactors would burn fuel that we idiotically label as waste and try to bury. China has picked up what we abandoned in the 50's; woe be to us when they scale modern reactor designs. Cheap, reliable and sustainable energy built the west - we are pissing that away over a bunch of overactive fear mongering. And if you think emerging markets are going to abandon fossil fuels and the advantages they brought us "because feelings" you are utterly delusional.

If the oceans are really in threat of rising, why did the Obamas buy multi-million dollar compound at sea level? Actions speak louder than words.

Speaking of China and new reactor designs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVqU5EPJSsM

> couldn't even build them to meet the needs of the grid near unlimited money

France did, with very limited money.

> It would require more than halving the capital requirements to get close to break even with renweables

France - the cost of their nuclear build-out 50 years ago made nuclear about the same cost as solar/wind (7c/kWh)

> they cannot touch fossil plants

Of course fossil plants get shut down if there is political will. (Yes France has barely any anymore, and the same goes for a number of other countries)

> much lower capital requirements

If you don't count the grid enhancement and the batteries needed for Dunkelflaute.

True! Hydro would contribute, and likely geothermal as well. Probably also some generation from the methane generated by composting garbage at scale.