Ok, so, what is 'viable'? If some community gave the beanie cap crowd the same monopoly status as the 'old' electric company, doesn't that make it viable? I mean, the only reason nuke isn't 'viable' is because we apply artificial costs to it keeping gas and coal 'viable'.
I am not following you in terms of monopoly (how many electricity-producing companies and co-ops, etc., do you think are out there?) or the artificial costs of nuclear. While nuclear is regulated well beyond anything else (including coal), I know of no artificial costs.
Nuclear was exploding again just a few years ago, with almost everyone involved in nuclear power plants planning on building new ones. Then, the US started sucking natural gas out of the ground like it was going out of style. Natural gas plants are cheap to build, cheap to operate, and now VERY cheap to fuel. They're far more efficient and "cleaner" than coal, so a new gas plant can be thrown up cheaply and quickly as compared to a nuke plant. Thus, almost all the plans for new nuclear plants were scrapped.
Nuclear is the only logical choice going forward in terms of scale and environmental concerns, but gas is cheap. That's capitalism, and it works. When wind can generate reliably and on a scale that people need, it will overtake both gas and nuclear. That day, you will see pigs flying on their own wings, honest politicians, and irrefutable proof with respect to the existence of the Free-Methodist version of God that no one will ever be able to question.