Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alright sure. Coal is also a terrible idea for energy and we also shouldn't be having coal. Pro nuclear people have this bizarre dichotomy as if it's either Charles Dickens 1840 style coal or Star Trek style nuclear. In reality, cost in storage and renewables are dropping like Moore's law (they have their own thing called Swanson's law) and even if you did everything right with nuclear you'd be losing money on it in…
If there were proper funding into nuclear plants, why wouldn't there also be some kind of reduction in price as new technologies are improved, like we are seeing with renewables? What about those molten salt thorium reactors from a few years ago that promised we could basically burn dirt to power our cities for forever?
Over $89 billion has been dumped in to it. That's like 20 companies the size of Lyft or Airbnb and it still performs and delivers poorly. How much more do you want?
Maybe, just maybe, it's a fundamentally bad technology and we can do better than nuclear.
https://www.taxpayer.net/energy-natural-resources/nuclear-su...