The obstacles that nuclear power faces are formidable.<p>One is that two other carbon-free options, solar and wind, are dropping in cost at a rapid rate at the same time that cost estimates for new nuclear plants are rising at a similarly rapid rate.<p>Another is that there isn't anyone who thought their investment in the existing fleet of nuclear plants in the US was a good investment. They were uniformly bad investments, which is the primary reason for the 40 year gap with essentially no new plants ordered.<p>Furthermore, even completely amortized plants are shutting down in the US. They can't even cover their operating costs, the few that shut down in the last year, let alone operating cost plus amortized construction cost.<p>So even with the federal government guaranteeing 90% of the funds used for new plant construction (free money) it hasn't been easy to find investors willing to put up the remaining 10%.<p>Nuclear power is awesome, especially if it is fusion power, and the reactor is 90M miles away, and anyone can use it for free just by put an inexpensive fusion power receiving panel outside with a clear view of the sky.<p>One just needs to project what the wholesale price of PV power will be in 10 years to see the real reason it is difficult to find investors for new nuclear plants. Why spend $5B on a nuclear plant when you could spend it on five solar panel plants that each produce 1GW of solar panels, each year, creating substantially more jobs than the reactor would? Just asking.