> Neither are nuclear power plants, is that an argument against them? I'm pro-nuclear, but as a society we need to think hard about what things we subsidize. S

> Neither are nuclear power plants, is that an argument against them? I'm pro-nuclear, but as a society we need to think hard about what things we subsidize. Subsidizing says, "We acknowledge this is not self-sustaining, so we will make taxpayers pay for it, enriching some subset of society at the expense of others." So is nuclear, which by your admission is unprofitable, the best way to get clean energy? Or are there things we can do to adequately price externalities caused by other forms of electrical generation? Why not wind or solar? To circle back to rail - I'm definitely not convinced that we need to invest insane amounts of time, money, and physical space to high-speed rail. The northeast corridor already has rail - does it need to be a bullet train? Would it be better to invest that money in clean(er) airplanes that use less carbon? What about electric cars, electric busses, and something exotic like the hyperloop? Just parroting that "High speed rail good! All other travel bad!" does not make it so. We have ample evidence that high speed rail is not the panacea that proponents make it out to be. In fact, the governor of California recently cancelled their attempt at a bullet train from LA to San Francisco because it was a giant over-budgeted disaster. https://reason.com/2019/02/14/californias-bullet-train-project-doesnt/ https://reason.com/2019/02/14/californias-bullet-train-proje...