The quoted statistics are interesting, but irrelevant when it comes to the actual use of nuclear. Furthermore, why are solar and wind energy missing from these stats? They account for 90% of new power in Europe in 2016 [1], and I'd assume similar for the major world economies. I'd like to know who funded this study. It screams of nuclear industry backing...
For anyone still being in disbelief of nuclear being made obsolete:
Why has not a single (!) private insurer been willing to fully insure a nuclear facility without government backing?! The reason is simple: the risk is too high, even for insurance companies worth billions.
TLDR: nuclear has, as yet, not worked using private financing.
The linked article just screams "last decade's energy mindset". Its conclusion may have been true then but it's certainly not true now in the age of cheap and widespread solar/wind.
There needs to be more awareness of this. If nuclear power was so amazingly safe, private insurance companies should have no problems insuring it. But they won't.
For anyone still being in disbelief of nuclear being made obsolete: Why has not a single (!) private insurer been willing to fully insure a nuclear facility without government backing?! The reason is simple: the risk is too high, even for insurance companies worth billions.
TLDR: nuclear has, as yet, not worked using private financing.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/09/new-ener...