> If you factor in all the cost involved nuclear energy doesn't make sense. Let's assume for a moment that nuclear can never be cost competitive with renewable

> If you factor in all the cost involved nuclear energy doesn't make sense. Let's assume for a moment that nuclear can never be cost competitive with renewables and natural gas in generation. Even in that scenario of guaranteed cost non-competitiveness, I would argue that it still makes sense to invest into, build and maintain a nuclear base for energy generation diversity purposes. Nuclear can provide enormous energy from a small number of operating reactors. There is also strong scientific value and potential in continuing to work on and improve nuclear, as who knows what the future holds. The US is one of the three or four leaders in nuclear energy still and it should maintain that capability. If you give it up, it will be extremely difficult to reclaim. Some things are worth subsidizing on cost because they have other offsetting attributes. It's why, for example, nearly all liberal democracies maintain standing armies today, often at great relative cost (even 2% of GDP is a lot of money coming out of an economy and being put toward a military that is very rarely used).