Nuclear is a political non-starter. No one wants to live near a nuclear power plant, and people tend to fight tooth and nail to fight the placement of nuclear power anywhere near them. The result of this is that nuclear power plants get foisted onto communities that don't have the political clout to fight them, or get thrown where there isn't anyone to fight. What ends up happening is that power plants get placed by politics instead of by science and engineering.

Further, it appears (at least to me) that proponents of nuclear underestimate the degree to which we (as a species) underpredict the likelihood of catastrophic events. In general, we're pretty bad at assessing the risk of so-called "black swans," but when the downside is so high, I understand why people are skeptical.

I personally am pro-nuclear, for many of the reasons described in the article, though I don't think the case is as clear cut as most nuclear proponents. On a rational level, I can understand that the likelihood of disaster is vanishingly small. I still don't want to live anywhere close to a nuclear power plant.