Clayton, with whatever respect is due you, when you deign to speak about "nuclear progress," it's rather like having the Ayotollah Khamenei discuss appropriate ways to decorate Christmas trees in Iowa in a way that Santa Claus will find pleasing.
I am a chemist by formal training, and I would suspect, from this remark you make about "chemical storage," with its obliviousness to the laws of thermodynamics suggests that your knowledge of chemistry is comparable to your knowledge of nuclear engineering.
The pressurized water reactor saved millions of human lives. It is an outstanding invention, the basic theory of which was developed by a Nobel Prize winning physicist, Eugene Wigner. The reactor type was built, and continues to be built, because it is a mature robust technology.
Now, I happen to know a considerable amount of nuclear engineering, and I believe that better reactors are available for more complex missions than merely generating electricity - it is great that nuclear can do what wind and solar will never be able to do, eliminate coal burning - but I believe that nuclear means are possible to eliminate the other two toxic fossil fuels, natural gas and oil. The Pressurized Water reactor, despite it's half a century of proved success cannot do this. But for you to announce blithely that nuclear technology is limited is basically an open confession of ignorance.
And let's be clear: Ignorance and fear are the two most powerful factors that have prevented nuclear saving many of the 210 million people who died from air pollution in the last 30 years, while people spent oodles and oodles and oodles of more money thinking up ever more tortured (and toxic) ways to make solar energy work.
But it doesn't work:
You say solar prices have been falling for thirty years. How come, after soaking the world for more than a trillion bucks over that same period, this industry does not produce a single exajoule of energy per year?
Nuclear has produced, despite caviling by the ignorant, between 25 and 30 exajoules of primary energy for each of the last 30 years.
I note that you report a period that is only after the awful excuse for a human being - who now makes his living "consulting" for fossil fuel companies, including oil sands companies - Amory Lovins told us that solar energy was "already competitive." If you knew anything about the history of energy thought, you might not be so glib about pushing your very, very, very, very, very, very expensive bourgeois fantasies on a world with rapidly diminishing resources.
You want solar cells on your roof? Good for you. Pay for them yourself. As far as I'm concerned, they're useless to the rest of humanity, and deserve not a single additional red cent of public money. I would rather learn that you also learn about what it might cost to dispose of any solar cells you pay for when they are transformed into yet more electronic toxic waste, and that you set this money aside, as any solar cells purchased tomorrow surely will be so transformed in almost no time, but I'll settle if you just agree to stop taking money out of schools, health care, opportunity for the needy, and, yes, basic nuclear research to pay for this grotesque failure, the fig leaf for the fossil fuel industry that advertises itself as "renewable energy."
You may call what I do "bashing." I call what I do an effort to spare human lives from the consequences of ignorance, because more than any other factor in human history, ignorance kills.
Have a nice weekend.