[Apocryphon]

Is there any actual book or article or any sort of source at all that shows that nuclear is an existential funding threat to renewables, rather something that has been politically moribund in the U.S. ever since Chernobyl, if not Three Mile Island?

Given how disadvantageous a position nuclear has been at for all of this time, it's probably trivial for pro-nuclear adherents to turn around and call the anti-nuke lobby shills for the fossil fuel industry. And so round and round the circular firing squad goes.

[ncmncm]

Nobody said "nuclear is an existential funding threat to renewables". You made that up from whole cloth.

Stop doing that.

[Apocryphon]

You are the one claiming that any money into nuclear funding detracts from funding of renewables. If that in fact is not an existential threat, then you should probably tone down your verbose vehemence to the former. If it is not an existential threat, then you are thundering against a non-issue.

You stop doing that.

[ncmncm]

I am not, in fact "thundering". You made that up. Stop it. I said nothing about "existential threats" or "threats" of any kind. You made that up. Stop it.

Every last dollar going into fraudulent fusion startups, and via federal grants from taxes into constructing ITER, is in fact diverted from potentially productive research. Fraud is a pure negative.

[Apocryphon]

Okay, so you’re saying something can be a pure negative, while not being an existential threat. Thank you for explaining your position.