In the early 1950s, many energy experts envisaged a “nuclear age”– a world harnessing the power of the atom to provide cheap, clean energy for everyone. Nuclear energy never climbed above 10% of global energy generation. As America struggles to find a new landscape for energy production, the old debate re-emerges with renewed vigor: is nuclear energy safe? When America was first setting up its modern nuclear regulatory regime with tight control over safety in the 1970s, nuclear power provided a clean alternative to coal-fired power plants. Nuclear power produces no carbon emissions or other harmful particulate matter that cause respiratory problems and– over the long run– has been relatively cost competitive to fossil fuels due to lower fuel costs and significant government subsidies. Yet it is safe to conclude that nuclear power is not a viable economic alternative to natural gas or renewable power and energy storage technology is an increasingly viable alternative to the “baseload” energy nuclear provides.

While nuclear power does provide a steady, clean supply of energy, the capital costs and the timeline on which the capital pays off is far too long. In the US energy market, the number of operational nuclear power plants peaked in 1996. One reason new reactors simply aren’t being built may be that construction can run horrendously over budget: Illinois’ Clinton reactor– one of the few reactors built in recent decades– took 7 years to build and actual costs exceeded estimates by around 1000%. Other reactors in New York, Illinois and Massachusetts have struggled to make a profit despite being buoyed by hefty federal subsidies and feed-in tariffs (which artificially boost the price nuclear energy producers get for selling their energy). Unlike in France, Japan or Germany, this series of closures is due not to government decree, but rather to market forces which simply make nuclear energy economically unattractive.

A large reason energy utilities simply aren’t investing in nuclear is the lack of a viable exit strategy: Illinois’ Exelon– the largest operator of nuclear plants in the US and the largest regulated energy company –with annual revenues topping $30 Billion– has reported that 2 of its 6 Illinois-based plants are losing the company money. Yet, they remain operant because, according to Exelon CEO Chris Crane “losing money is cheaper than decommissioning.” For companies looking to build power plants, nuclear represents a giant up-front investment with uncertain long-term profitability and an arduous and expensive decommissioning process. Small wonder the private sector is so hesitant to put up the funds necessary to run these plants. In order to make any policy addressing climate change politically sustainable, it must be carried out in a manner that does not harm economic interests.

In contrast, solar panels are expected to continue their decade-long dive in price. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) projects a 59% fall in prices within the next decade– enough to out-compete fossil fuels according to the Agency– and in sunny spots in Texas and Oklahoma, solar power is already the cheapest energy option, with wind energy following similar trends– selling for $0.025/kWh in some areas, far below the $.04-$.06/kWh US average. Texas company Austin Energy completed a purchase in 2014 of solar energy at around $.06/kWh.