I agree that we have the engineering capability to build nuclear power plants today that are far safer than those built in the past and still active today. But that is not the impediment. The fears associated with nuclear energy, originating from its use in WWII and then in very well publicized power plant failures render them politically unpalatable. Even in the face of rising fossil fuel costs (both $ and environmental), leading European countries have been decommissioning their nuclear plants. Decisions that require political support (which anything on this scale will) and involve a public approval process are not strictly 'rational' decisions because the emotional baggage they unleash cannot be overcome with calm, cost v benefit arguments. Like it or not, this is (and always has been) the reality of democratic decision making. Autocratic societies will just do what their dear leader says is to be done, but that carries its own baggage as well. So when asking "why do we (as a society) do 'this' rather than 'that'" we need to recognize that we (humans) are not wholly rational decision makers. Skilled politicians -- those who can actually get things done -- know how to move the decision making process slowly and carefully towards a desired outcome by avoiding emotional trip points that will de-rail the agenda (and ruin their career -- see your essay on 'cancel culture'). Nuclear energy, unfortunately, is one of those trip points. The good news is that there is considerable work underway to find energy transformation technologies that can be scaled to a societal level (fusion, for example, as an alternative to fission). Whether these can be developed and deployed before the climate change clock runs out on us is yet to be determined ....
I agree that we have the engineering capability to build nuclear power plants today that are far safer than those built in the past and still active today. But that is not the impediment. The fears associated with nuclear energy, originating from its use in WWII and then in very well publicized power plant failures render them politically unpalatable. Even in the face of rising fossil fuel costs (both $ and environmental), leading European countries have been decommissioning their nuclear plants. Decisions that require political support (which anything on this scale will) and involve a public approval process are not strictly 'rational' decisions because the emotional baggage they unleash cannot be overcome with calm, cost v benefit arguments. Like it or not, this is (and always has been) the reality of democratic decision making. Autocratic societies will just do what their dear leader says is to be done, but that carries its own baggage as well. So when asking "why do we (as a society) do 'this' rather than 'that'" we need to recognize that we (humans) are not wholly rational decision makers. Skilled politicians -- those who can actually get things done -- know how to move the decision making process slowly and carefully towards a desired outcome by avoiding emotional trip points that will de-rail the agenda (and ruin their career -- see your essay on 'cancel culture'). Nuclear energy, unfortunately, is one of those trip points. The good news is that there is considerable work underway to find energy transformation technologies that can be scaled to a societal level (fusion, for example, as an alternative to fission). Whether these can be developed and deployed before the climate change clock runs out on us is yet to be determined ....