| > So much has changed since There's no solid proof that the changes were for the better, but such a proof is absolutely necessary. If anything, we've been recently observing deepening quid pro quo between government and business, at the expense of public interests. > would probably require a state sponsor The probability of that is far above zero while it should be practically indistinguishable from it - which is not realistic. > It really can't, over a million people die annually from air pollution alone, never mind the billions expected to perish as a result of downstream effects of climate change. It's pretty clear you're looking at the wrong equation. I am all for nuclear power but plutonium is absolutely irrelevant to the plight of pollution and climate. Nuclear power has to be built slowly with great caution together with renewables in order to exclude Fukushimas, Chernobyls and Three Mile Islands. It's hard as it is even without plutonium in the mix. Much like in the case of rushed AI and data centers, "move fast and break things" is the wrong attitude here. There's conventional uranium fuel with low enrichment which is hard to separate, it can work as well or better than plutonium for power in civilian installations, the latter isn't necessary, it only adds risk without any benefit compared to uranium. > Frankly a nuke or two is nothing by comparison, This is breathtakingly wrong. What follows "a nuke or two" can wipe out 90% of the globe, and the US isn't going to be spared. If you don't understand that, you need to research more. |