[caslon]

I don't disagree that nuclear energy is good; I'm pointing out that you're strawmanning. A solar farm doesn't have to be protected from missiles, because if it gets hit with missiles, only it is destroyed. It harms nothing around it, if it gets destroyed or fails in some fashion.

If you want to represent nuclear, do it honestly; there are a million reasons why it's a good thing, a weak strawman doesn't help your case.

[andbberger]

it's not a strawman. designing to requirements driven by fear and not rational risk assessment can make feasible technology infeasible.

if we designed airliners with a safety factor in line with people's fear of flying and not the actual risk of failure, they would never be able to get off the ground.

yet we require that nuclear power plants tolerate any conceivable failure mode, no matter how unlikely, or dangerous.

that's not rational.

[TheOtherHobbes]

It's far less rational to keep building expensive and unsafe generation when cheaper and safer generation is already available - and can be built more quickly.

And that's before equivalent spending on research, plus tax breaks and subsidies.