> Not being able to get alignment is a valid reason to question "could". I agree. That's precisely what I mentioned was the only barrier in achieving it. The a

> Not being able to get alignment is a valid reason to question "could". I agree. That's precisely what I mentioned was the only barrier in achieving it. The answer to getting it done is getting alignment from various stakeholders. Many of the people that think it's a hoax or the ones that don't believe it's doomsday support nuclear plants. That's always been the case in the US. You can get alignment without even agreeing on why to go nuclear. This escapes the doomsdayers and the climate crusaders. And based on your comment... you. I mean - you provided a perfect example. You mentioned our outgoing President thinking climate change is a hoax while we are talking about nuclear plants. And he supported nuclear plants. People with different concerns and end goals can't talk and agree on things that would help both of their agendas. You want nuclear plants? Pitch national security to one group. Pitch saving the world to the other. Pitch cleaner air to another. You aren't going to get anything done if you try to convince them that they need to believe your reason. As Neil deGrasse Tyson's dad told him - it's not enough to be right. You must be effective.