> Yes it can be profitable. But never moral Without comparing it to the morality of the alternatives, it's not really fair to say that. The only other large p

> Yes it can be profitable. But never moral Without comparing it to the morality of the alternatives, it's not really fair to say that. The only other large power sources in existence today that are reliable and sufficient to meet demands are fossil fuels. Burning them has been demonstrated time and time again to shorten the lives of the millions who have to live near the pollution. Not to mention climate change, which is happening as a result of CO2 emissions. Solar and wind are cheaper, but not reliable. You need to either have massive energy storage- whose cost to build would greatly exceed nuclear plants- or else additional fossil fuel plants to handle the fluctuations. > if the operators have to pay insurance premiums against the possibility of catastrophic failure? Nuclear in Ontario uses CANDU[0] reactors- a design which has never had any disasters. Insurance against catastrophic failure wouldn't be expensive given all of the long-proven safety features built in, and strong engineering regulations around operations. > What is the cost of permanently, and safely, storing a tonne of very poisonous material for hundreds of thousands of years? Cheaper than the costs to society for the thousands/millions of premature deaths each year from pollution and hundreds of millions who are going to be displaced from climate change. And worth pointing out as well that the CANDU design is versatile enough to be able to use the waste of some other reactor types or dismantled nuclear weapons as fuel. It's all about context, is my point. And in the context of the world today, nuclear is (imho) the best choice as the baseline power generation system. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor