[Robotbeat]

I’m a fan of nuclear, and I suspect you’re right. The reasons people say they oppose even existing nuclear (cost, waste, safety) don’t usually pass scrutiny. I suspect it is primarily due to their association with nuclear weapons. It instills a pretty deep fear, which I don’t entirely blame them for. ...however it has pretty terrible health, environmental, and economic consequences to prioritize nuclear phase out over fossil fuels (especially coal).

[hanniabu]

The reason I'm against nuclear power is the human greed factor. See my past comment for more details and sources:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348520

[Robotbeat]

I find none of this convincing. Industrial accidents happen with all thermal power plant types. And coal ash disposal has a worse track record than nuclear waste. (Coal ash being naturally radioactive!) And the aerosols produced from coal transport and burning are a continual problem of lung cancer.

Nuclear is remarkably well-regulated by comparison. I understand why people may want to get rid of it eventually, but compared to coal, it's sunshine and rainbows.

[da_big_ghey]

we are having way to ensure beter compliance. may be we need for to make nuclear executive responsible with jail time if requirements broken. certainly nuclear safety has more importance than sox compliance.

[valenterry]

Until the ones who gain profit from nuclear power would also pay for an insurance that covers for the worst possible accident, I think you will have a hard time to argue for nuclear energy.