A nuclear plant is many billions, it's a bridge too far. Moreover, the potential negative PR could be problematic for them. Finally, Disney is not what it use

A nuclear plant is many billions, it's a bridge too far. Moreover, the potential negative PR could be problematic for them. Finally, Disney is not what it used to be, it's now mostly an entertainment company. They have 0 understanding of these things, it's way beyond their capacity. It's a regular public company without founder/visionary and I can't ever see a board approving this. Google - this would be a company for which it would be outlandish but still within reach, i.e. they have (had?) 'moonshots' - those heady founder-backed 'change the world' projects which are part of how companies winning the current 'visionary narrative' get to spend their money. That's all gone; fortunately Bezos can spend, and it's SpaceX's business to do that, not a side-show, so they'll be around. And the Virgin billionaire as well. Edit: I should add - Disney is firmly an entertainment business, they are effectively a Hollywood Studio, mostly like any other. For anyone with any exposure to this business, it seems abundantly clear how out of bounds this would be; and this is good because these are maybe the last people we want building nuclear power plants.