Earlier quoted context omitted.
People do need to be convinced that nuclear is better than natural gas. In calm winter nights, nuclear is competing with natural gas, not wind. And because of fracking and horizontal drilling, the electricity prices have fallen in deregulated markets like the midwest, and electricity revenues have dropped precipitously. When you have a plant that's all capital and O&M with very low fuel cost (like a nuke), this unexp…
And considering the usual ways giant industries choose to "reduce costs", it's a bit unnerving for the rest of us. Blaming the costs on regulatory compliance bureaucracy is one of those things that pro-nuclear people really need to stop saying, even to the extent that it's true (which is less than they think). Distrust of big corporations is as high as distrust of government, and for good reason. No one wants to live…
I'm going to go ahead and point out that more people die falling off their roofs installing solar per kWh than have died per kWh from decades of nuclear operation [1]. Denigrating that data as mansplaining seems pretty anti-scientific. Both death/kWh rates are nearly zero compared to fossil fuels.
Apparent risks, now that's a real problem. Can be solved with PR and education.
Check my link in the previous post. You'll see that the industry is writing down in good detail exactly how it plans to reduce costs by increasing procedural efficiency without reducing safety.
To just say that appropriate safety has to be expensive, and any attempt to fix it is unsafe, is pretty bold, especially in the face of what the climate scientists are predicting with continued carbon emissions.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
[2] https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy