> I don't think you can handwave that away as an "of course". The externalities around fossil fuels are simply enormous; the issues and costs and risks of nucle

> I don't think you can handwave that away as an "of course". The externalities around fossil fuels are simply enormous; the issues and costs and risks of nuclear are multiple orders of magnitude less. That wasn't intended as a handwave. Fossil fuel externalities are indeed enormous and well documented. It's exhausting to talk to pro-nuclear people, because all everyone ever talks about is nuclear vs fossil. That was the 20th century's fight. Fossil fuel for the generation of electricity is already doomed, because solar and wind are way cheaper now. Capitalism will take care of finishing off coal, the sooner the better, if we want to keep the planet livable. In combination with rapid technological innovation in grid-scale storage, we will hopefully end up with a low-carbon power generation solution, one that does not involve risks of a nuclear accident, nor nuclear waste.