I didn't disagree with the comment, but I fear that pro-nuclear advocates have become almost as irrational as the far more irrational anti-nuclear advocates tha

I didn't disagree with the comment, but I fear that pro-nuclear advocates have become almost as irrational as the far more irrational anti-nuclear advocates that they fight against all the time. Wrestling with pigs makes you muddy too, after all. Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself anti-nuclear according to any of the standard anti-nuke arguments, and was extremely pro-nuclear power in the US in the 2000s. However the experiences of advanced economies with very high productivity and labor costs (France, US, Finland) have completely soured me on the possibility of nuclear in the future, as the tech doesn't work that well and is very expensive. Even the country very best at construction, China, is only planning another 50GW or so, which is a tiny tiny fraction of any other new energy source that they are investing in. And if the best in the world at large construction projects is only putting in a token effort, I don't know why we in the US, who suck at large construction, should attempt more boondoggles. And in researching the history of nuclear, I find that it has always been this way, not so great. I think it only gets ardent supporters these days because of its prominence in SF.