> [even then,] still more expensive than solar Also more expensive than climate change adaptation? I know it's a big and, truth be told, unanswerable question

> [even then,] still more expensive than solar Also more expensive than climate change adaptation? I know it's a big and, truth be told, unanswerable question I'm asking. I just mean to say: can we really afford to pinch pennies here, comparing the cheapest forms of energy we have today (like solar) as a benchmark which it must beat before we consider a low-carbon low-landuse low-risk* base load to be a good addition to the grid? So long as it's not prohibitively expensive, at least. * near-negligible chance but a fairly large impact (not in death/cancer toll, at least not compared to gas/coal even if you scale it per kWh, but in evacuation and cleanup costs), at least when not considering that we might build better reactors than we did in the 60s (even if we probably would) (Fukushima and Chernobyl were designed before my parents were born and I'm not a teenager anymore). I can see how people find this not danger-free, even if most of it is misguided, especially when you're not near the biggest fault line of this planet