Some quick napkin-paper math as far as how much electricity we could generate if this $16T was spent on nuclear energy:<p>The levelized cost (that is, including overhead costs of plant construction) are still lower than solar. Less than solar and about the same as wind, except that nuclear isn't intermittent which eliminates the need for energy storage. At $120 per megawatt hour, this $16 trillion could be used to generate 128000 terawatt hours of electricity [1].<p>Let's put this in more concrete examples. The total us electricity generation is ~1 terawatt. The Palo Verde plant generates ~4 gigawatts and cost $12 billion in 2018 dollars [3]. At this cost/capacity ratio, $16 trillion could be used to generate just over 5 terawatts. Over 5x the current capacity of the US power generation grid. What's even more impressive is that this is a one-off plant design, which is much less cost effective than serial plant production (like what the French did during the 70s and 80s) where a handful of designs are created but dozens or more plants are built using those designs.<p>Granted electricity isn't the only form of energy consumption, but it is a huge source of carbon production that can be replaced.<p>1. <a href="https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/" rel="nofollow">https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/electri...</a><p>2. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Unit...</a><p>3. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_...</a>