>>11013980this is a good point. it is true that nuclear requires a very large up-front cost to get plants running. and investing in "infrastructure" of that sort is controversial. most repooblishits in the past hated the idea of investing in "infrastructure" but surprisingly trump did say some stuff about liking investing in infrastructure (however he hasn't followed up)
it's not hard to argue for though, logically. invest X today and then you get Y much greater than X back in the future. that's a sure thing for nuclear. it's common sense in addition to saving the environment.
the real problem are the shills who go all alarmist about Chernobyl and Fukushima. no shit, don't make giant human errors and don't build your reactor on the coast over a fault line. hurr durr
either way, the whole dialogue in the political sphere is ignoring nuclear. for bad reasons. they should consider it. because IT JUST WERKS
