> because it is too expensive but also because confidence has been lost. The public were promised power too cheap to meter and ended up with a mess of unknown e

> because it is too expensive but also because confidence has been lost. The public were promised power too cheap to meter and ended up with a mess of unknown expenses and risks. 1) Newer reactor designs are less expensive, especially small modular reactors 2) The promises you're talking about were made to the public in the 1950s, and those people are now so old they won't see the results of deciding whether to use nuclear power more or not, anyway. The people whose "confidence has been lost" are rapidly dying off of old age. Younger people have in general a more realistic view of nuclear power. It's not perfect, but it's not the boogeyman that hippies were taught to fear. >we have to be realistic and move forward now as quickly as possible with the tools we have Exactly! And the only carbon neutral tool that we can use that is sufficiently powerful technology to power our industries at their current level is nuclear. So, we have to move forward with it.