This is denial of basic spreadsheet realities. Solar and wind power generation are already cheaper than nuclear and much easier to build and expand. Not only are nuclear plants more costly to build and operate, but the nuclear waste is piling up and will need to be dealt with in some way eventually which will cost a significant amount of money.<p>Nuclear is not the solution to getting off fossil fuels primarily because it is too expensive but also because confidence has been lost. The public were promised power too cheap to meter and ended up with a mess of unknown expenses and risks. If nuclear advocates had been more cautious and careful then public opinions would be more reasonable but that is not what happened and we have to be realistic and move forward now as quickly as possible with the tools we have.
The problem I see with nuclear proponents is that Internet, for all it vastness, lacks a kind of objective consideration of nuclear pro and contra. Instead of ridiculing nuclear opponents, a good description of nuclear waste question is needed - but most I can see is praises without arguments.<p>How much waste is produced? What's the waste content? How it could be dealt with? How long this waste represents a problem? What is actually done, and why's the difference? Questions like that aren't that easy to answer - nuclear waste discussions rarely talk about it.
The minute someone steps up to actually deal with the nuclear waste we have, we can talk about making more. While it's sat in rusting drums on the same sites that produced it, because no one will offer their back yard or their cash, making more is a non-starter.