The US doesn't lack space. But investors like a quick return on investment; meanwhile nuclear reactors only make sense if you bet on high electricity prices for the next ~70 years. The time a nuclear plant spends on construction and decommissioning is about the same as the total lifetime of a solar installation.
How about recognizing that externalities of letting corporations do whats best for their own short term profits are costly to society, and that having safe cheap constant power is a social good that makes having government run nuclear power be a good idea. how about we not let the same people that have spent the last 50 years knowingly destroy the environment and hide their culpability be the ones to make the decision.
how about we as a society finally fulfill the promise of power to cheap to meter that we were told back in nuclears golden age before the carbon industry start the smear campaign against nuclear.
Nuclear has a lot of externalities (residues, security, financing... usually paid and supported by others). You talk about nuclear like it was a small enterprise, when it's the very definition of "greedy corporation".
It's funny-and-sad to see the old behemoth of nuclear power begging for government support as they last chance to be alive.
On the contary i dont think businesses big or small should do it I think the government should do it as a public good. Free carbonless energy for the people.
> before the carbon industry start the smear campaign against nuclear.
The environmental Greens had a lot to do with the smear. Even recently, they were the ones who pushed for the shutdown of German nuclear power which ended up increasing German CO2 output.
That's true. And it was Green ministers that pushed to keep the last German NPPS running longer, as long as possible. It was also the Greens who sent the first German troops abroad under NATO mandates, so one can say tge reputation of the Greens is not always matched by their actions. They are very easy scape goats so.
