> Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, but that safety comes at a financial cost. Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. If f

> Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity, but that safety comes at a financial cost. Pursuing nuclear is great but solar/wind are much cheaper. If fossil fuel use was burdened with the level of safety regulations that nuclear fission is, sufficient enough to make it as safe and clean as nuclear, we might suddenly find that nuclear is actually very cheap. To me it seems like a false dichotomy to suggest that nuclear is competing with solar/wind. At best it's competing with solar/wind + batteries, but in reality it's competing with natural gas and coal. And natural gas & coal have an unfair advantage because society and our governments have drastically more tolerance for it's absurdly greater lethality and pollution compared to nuclear. Fun fact, since the NRC, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was founded in the US in 1975, they have not approved ANY new nuclear sites, only a few expansions of existing sites. I honestly wonder how many deaths the NRC is responsible for by beating down nuclear development to the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.