> Sure, but such support — particularly from industry in the absence of even greater subsidies for which there is no public support — does not exist anyway, nor is a meltdown even remotely likely.
Globally, we've had 2 major meltdowns in the last 25 years. There have been many near misses. Three mile island was only a 'partial' meltdown, but it happened right here in the US, in 1979.
I don't know why you think a meltdown is "not even remotely likely".
We're mostly decommissioning them as they age, usually before the end of their design life. And there are legal requirements to do so at the end of their permitted period if they aren't refreshed. So, what's the risk?
> If one of the plants have a meltdown it's going to ruin any support to have them replaced.
Sure, but such support — particularly from industry in the absence of even greater subsidies for which there is no public support — does not exist anyway, nor is a meltdown even remotely likely.
> The U.S. keeps these plants so they can make nuclear weapons very quickly
The U.S. keeps shutting them down, and isn't replacing them, so I don't think that's accurate.