> Some countries have formally committed to eliminating power from nuclear fission. Most have not. Most countries have not formally committed to eliminating po

> Some countries have formally committed to eliminating power from nuclear fission. Most have not. Most countries have not formally committed to eliminating power from fossil fuels, either - though there's obviously more of a trend in that direction. Point being that past lack of commitment is no indicator of future direction. > Most countries have at least some regions that would be happy to accept the good, stable employment and tax base offered by a nuclear power plant in exchange for the very slight risk of accidents. Given there's 195 countries - 'most' may be misapplied here. I think it's optimistic to believe that there'll be stable employment for more than a handful of people per nuclear fission power plant. Tax legislation comes and goes. And as to slight risk .. I think that's misrepresenting things too. A risk matrix typically takes into account likelihood vs effect. You may be suggesting there's a 'small likelihood', while ignoring the massive potential effects of an incident -- equating to significant actual risk. A review of the history and progress <sic> of the Hinkley nuclear fission power plant in the UK - a country that certainly meets the pro-nuclear-fission requirement - is sobering. This article (from late 2015), and apologies for Telegraph link [1] is highly depressing. The wikipedia page [2] has a few more recent details. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/nuclearpower/11945485/Nuclear-go-ahead-construction-of-new-plant-to-begin-within-weeks.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/nuclearpower/11... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...