[Zigurd]

The argument can be further simplified: Nuclear power hasn't got a track record of being economical or safe. The costs of contaminating areas like Fukushima and Chernobyl are astronomical an uninsurable. Spent fuel is piling up. End of life costs are known to be very high, but are also unbounded and unfunded. Maybe alt-fuel reactors are the answer. Maybe the industry can be optimized based on current technology. But there is no demonstration that this is true.

[wallace_f]

According to this Scientific American article, radiation from coal has a track record of being more harmful than radiation from nuclear: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...

They, however, certainly downplay the tail risk of nuclear.

[sfifs]

From the same article:

> McBride and his co-authors estimated that individuals living near coal-fired installations are exposed to a maximum of 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. To put these numbers in perspective, the average person encounters 360 millirems of annual "background radiation" from natural and man-made sources, including substances in Earth's crust, cosmic rays, residue from nuclear tests and smoke detectors.

[Zigurd]

Coal, oil, and even gas are dirty and dangerous. But they are investable and insurable, with less (but definitely not zero) government support.

I'm all for pricing-in the externalities. And if that makes nuclear a relatively better investment, hurrah! If new technologies turn nuclear into something supportable in normal capital markets, hurrah! But there is no proof-of-concept yet.