We built profitable nuclear plants in the past. One might wonder how with mind bogglingly better designs and a much richer world, we can't afford to build them today. My money is that the blame lies between political reasons and that Nat-Gas is cheap, relatively clean, and wildly abundant energy source in N. America.

Right now in N. America you'd be a fool to build anything but a mid-sized Nat-Gas generator which can be spun up/down quickly and costs less to run than anything else, while gaining major political points for outputting far less pollution than coal.

Well that’s interesting, because University of Minnesota ran simulations with MISO that stated batteries and solar would outperform a gas peaker on that grid financially in the next few years.

http://energytransition.umn.edu/modernizing-minnesotas-grid-...

My state's power companies all run solar and wind installations, and are incredibly heavily regulated, and all charge extra if you want power from them. Without a doubt wind and solar cost more in my southern state than Nat-Gas. Solar is a complete waste as other providers require contracts to stay available to pick up the slack on cloudy days, and that price is directly accountable against the solar energy making it far less competitive.

The Department of Justice took Entergy to court for this sort of behavior; that’s why they were forced to join MISO.

https://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2018/...

That is too bad. My wind plan in Maryland is less than 10 cents per kw hr.

Then it shouldn't be a problem at all. The power companies will simply veer towards solar if it's cheaper.

Tell that to Entergy New Orleans (on the MISO grid) and a population fixated on “local” plants and jobs

Relevant John Oliver clip below:

https://www.theadvocate.com/gambit/new_orleans/news/the_late...

"Too expensive" seems like a flaw, as does radioactive waste.

(Unless you're counting solar as a form of nuclear energy.)