and instead of building plants with learnings from those events we continue to do nothing with nuclear, relying on ever aging tech and facilities. id love to see small nuclear reactors or some of the other designs being put into use. we also need to spread renewables around as well. if every house was its own powersource and onl relied on the grid for backup things would be cleaner.

I doubt nuclear alone would suffice to power our civilization. Of course, you didn't say that.

Oil has been quite easy energy source enabling complex supply chains and I don't think we can change them to electric or nuclear powered ones.

We've had a horrible track record on waste disposal. Climate change is the result of our failure to dispose of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and that's also why I'm wary of us dealing with nuclear waste.

The problem is that the nuclear evangelists refuse to engage in real debate about the downsides of the technology. Every valid criticism or suggestion that other alternatives are a better investment is brushed aside, often with a side of name calling.

The reality is that renewables are much more scalable and cost effective in the long term than these massive infrastructure projects. Nuclear is fine. We should have been building it for the past 50 years. The reasons we didn't build it are dumb. But it's simply an outdated paradigm now. Investing a billion dollars and ten years in building a power station now just doesn't make sense when you could invest that money in better future proof tech like microgrid solar.

On your third point, it can be argued that solar panels still allow capitalists to centralize everything. Solar panels use a similar production process to microchips which is something they can just make as expensive as they can, it's not like people can rebel and make homebrew solar panels. Remember when there was a "chip shortage" for no reason so they made all the chips and graphics cards really expensive?