>We might well decide that it comes out in favor of nuclear there, but if we're minimizing harm then harm has to be measured, accounted for, and limited, and th

>We might well decide that it comes out in favor of nuclear there, but if we're minimizing harm then harm has to be measured, accounted for, and limited, and therefore regulating this particular thing makes perfect sense. The problem is that this argument holds for every 'this particular thing'. How does it affect the patterns of migratory birds? Cicada cycles? Invasive species? Are historical buildings going to be destroyed? Trees cut down? Was there a native american settlement on the site that we just have to study? That any one of these petty concerns can be brought to litigation by an activist party to stand in the way of 9% of California's total energy demand is absurd and self-defeatist. People wonder why we can't build anything anymore[0] and then demand we bike-shed every petty item to death in the courts. [0]At reasonable costs/timelines. I'm still waiting for my high speed rail. Or housing that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.