I do wish we could overcome our squeamishness about nuclear. Because our climate circumstances are indeed dangerous. And in my opinion, they're quite a bit more dangerous than nuclear power would be, if we committed to scaling it up with a reasonable balance of safety and cost-effectiveness. It is only expensive because we hold it to a much higher standard of safety than any other power source. And understandably so, to some extent, because the tail risk from operating nuclear is greater, but we are facing tail risk from fossil fuels warming the planet as well, and I think that tail risk is much greater and much harder to control than that from nuclear.
I think we need less moralism and fear of complex systems, and more hard-headed, engineering-led cost-benefit analysis.
Yes. I am not certain. I have the opinions I've given in my post, and a perception that a legitimate cost-benefit debate has been cut short by moralizing.
I think we need less moralism and fear of complex systems, and more hard-headed, engineering-led cost-benefit analysis.