&gt; <i>It&#x27;s more expensive than the alternatives, including wind and solar.</i><p>You&#x27;re probably looking at best-case vs. worst-case here. The expense of getting sufficient wind power in areas without wind or solar power in low-light areas can get pretty crazy. And a large portion of the expense of nuclear power is regulatory hurdles we impose on it.<p>&gt; <i>Its failure modes have so much more potential to be catastrophic than the alternatives.</i><p>The <i>success mode</i> of the current most popular alternative (fossil fuels) has proven much more catastrophic. As for other things like wind and solar power, I think a lot of people are unconvinced that it&#x27;s fair to call them &quot;alternatives&quot; yet. Nuclear has proven itself as a good general-purpose solution and they have not, and nuclear seems to be a lot better than what we are doing now.