>Unprofitable technologies don't have the stakeholders who would defend them. I think this is the key observation. I have no doubt that the referendum mentione

>Unprofitable technologies don't have the stakeholders who would defend them. I think this is the key observation. I have no doubt that the referendum mentioned in this thread was unfairly biased by Chernobyl. But if nuclear were a trillion dollar industry, such a referendum would never have been allowed to take place. Nobody was holding referendums to ban oil after Exxon Valdez. But I think it's also worth mentioning that a big part of the reason that nuclear is difficult to turn a profit with is regulation (and public opinion) that unfairly holds nuclear to a much higher standard than fossil fuels. In a "nuclear context", any radiation is seen as an environmental catastrophe. Meanwhile coal plants belch radioactive waste out of their smokestacks and nobody bats an eye. Why, just a few days ago an article hit the front page about the US Army burying store bought tape dispensers in 55 gallon drums as hazardous waste, because they contained a small amount of a certain type of beach sand with radiation oh-so-slightly above background. All that pointless burying of harmless crap has got to cost!