Is it a waste of time and money? I think they have a small role in niche applications but will not be efficient at scale. I'd say the best outcome we can hope for is a full nuclear baseload with fossil fuels or renewables to account for surges and drops in demand. For non electrical power, we should have a "Nuclear Corps" uniformed service to run the nuclear plants for process heat and maritime transportation.

To be clear: I'm fascinated by the all these technologies. Things like polysilicon and sunlight harvesting, large electric motors, large turbine blades, and using naturally abundant flows of energy are attractive but the downside of low energy density and intermittency is a killer. I feel as though the public discussion is out of control and does not recognize the lack of feasibility.

Nuclear has its issues- the supply chain and expertise has atrophied, and the regulation is heavy handed (what an understatement). On top of that there is an understandable but misplaced fear of radiation. None of these problems are fundamental to the technology. They can be solved if everyone understood the pros, cons, and relative scale of certain aspects.

Where does everyone land? Thanks for your thoughts!

Edit: A big trend I'm seeing is people really believe different things about how much energy costs in the areas where wind and solar most used (California, New England, Germany, etc.). Seems like this is an important question that can be answered with data. Until then people are living in different realities with different sets of facts. I'm not 100% sure of the answer but I lean toward energy being made more expensive in these places. It is only the wealthiest economies where the renewable experiment is taking place. I think that's telling. If w&s truly made energy cheaper it would be adopted in a heartbeat by struggling economies. The same can be said of nuclear, however there's the excuse of fear, high upfront costs, and lack of experience. All are unique to nuclear.