[PolLambert]

Not great points:

1. Isn't a business POV or about deadends and it applies to any shift in energy production.

2. I think some geologists are going to want to have a word with him concerning tectonics. Also just because US can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done. E.g. Finland is doing it.

3. The production cost of nuclear based electricity is very weakly dependent on the price of natural uranium. A doubling of the cost in U-nat results in a cost increase of a few %. Also backstop technologies (U from seawater or Th or bomb deconstruction) are available and technologically viable (though not economically viable with oil below $150)

4. No terrorist is going to build a Pu-bomb. It's orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive than a U-bomb. Moreover, no terrorists is going to 'build' a bomb. Also, reactor grade Pu is unusable for a bomb due to its isotopic composition.

5. I'm calling BS. Freshwater consumption for energy generation is typically a few % if cooling towers are involved. As for coastal NPP's: Fukushima Daini is located 12km from Fukushima Daichi one the same coast yet nothing happened there.