It is certainly correct that power choices are based on a number of complex decisions, some of which have are influenced by public opinion. One of the reasons why nuclear power stations of various designs were built in the 1960s into the 1970s was because of the exciting idea that nuclear power was the energy of the future and this caught the wave of an energy zeitgeist so to speak. That idea impetus in itself was not a bad thing, but required more actual examination and development.

Not all designs were equal although there was a fair amount of technological innovation in nuclear plant design and construction. Some of the early designs were flawed, most apparent in the Russian series designed reactor at Chernobyl where a sudden shutdown could actually cause, and did, a runaway reactor and quick steam buildup leading to a steam explosion exposing the reactor core and materials. Even where there were not major design flaws, downtime and plant inefficiency was often a problem, as well as the fact that there was little design standardization. Nuclear power and improved design has come a long way since then.

High initial capital cost and long lead time to build a nuclear plant is still a major factor in construction decisions. Some costs have been brought down by improvements in design efficiency and it is likely that capital cost will be brought down further by building of multiple plants with the same improved design, also considering that there are several design alternatives. In the United States a major factor in cost of fuel is that spent reactor fuel will not be refined and reused. This choice was a reasonable political decision at least at the time it was made, so as to prevent the proliferation of a fuel source with a potential use for nuclear weapons. (This consideration is resurfacing in the debate about Iran or other countries perhaps much more politically stable than Iran acquiring such fuel sources for peaceful use of nuclear power, but with an option for weapons grade fuel use.) Yet in other countries which already have a viable program of nuclear power, such as France, reuse and refining of spent fuel has not been so problematic, and their fuel costs are thus much more competitive against coal or gas, or oil.

The cost of oil (and natural gas) is increasingly a factor because of the related increase in demand for electric power as oil becomes more costly and less plentiful as an energy option. Until recently, and beginning in the 1970s an abundance of coal and gas fired plants were easily meeting the energy demands in several countries so that there was little incentive to build new nuclear plants. Their high initial capital cost and uncertainty about future energy demands meant that almost no new construction occured. An additional factor, still true today, was that the most desireable sites which had ready access to abundant cooling water and other preferable geologic siting were utilized early on.

It is likely that nuclear power today and in the foreseeable future will have a well deserved resurgence as one potential choice for power generation among several complementary options, but will not in itself be a power generation panacea for any country or region.