Thanks for reminding of the increasingly economical non-nuclear non-fossil options. On the matter of Minnesota nuclear plants: I would caution that the perceiv

Thanks for reminding of the increasingly economical non-nuclear non-fossil options. On the matter of Minnesota nuclear plants: I would caution that the perceived cheap power is a result of significant expenses born by the populous as a whole decades ago... expenses that aren't in your power bill today but worth remembering. And similarly, there will eventually be significant expenses born by society as a whole to deal with the waste. The fact that waste is piling up at all reactor sites---and don't think that's not a hazard in natural disaster/accident situations, let alone targeted strikes---means there is a significant not-yet-quantifiable cost uncertainty inherent to nuclear power. Cost uncertainty has to be thought of as a significant cost, even higher than the potential cost will actually turn out to be, since we need to assume the worst when we don't know. Thus if we really want to talk about the true cost of existing nuclear power: it's far higher than what you're paying today per KWh