No one is making those arguments here so why bring them up? Unlike nuclear, that misinformation isn’t suppressing investment.

Because the person he was responding to was using anti-nuclear bad arguments as a reason for using nuclear. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

Misinformation isn't suppressing nuclear investment, the all too real cost of nuclear is.

I repeat: bad arguments aren’t a problem for renewables as with nuclear.

I reject your claim that bad arguments are hurting nuclear. Nuclear is in trouble because of devastating correct economic arguments.

Nonsense. If it weren't for FUD campaigns, nuclear energy regulations could be more lax (there's a huge chasm between the safety of nuclear and fossil fuels and no one had a problem with fossil fuel deaths for most of the last half century) and investment could continue in finding more economical designs. Note that various Asian countries are able to build and operate even older nuclear plants economically.

Nonsense right back at you. Nuclear with a normal level of regulation, with the same level of up-fuckery seen in other industries, would have eventually reached a level of safety, but only after a long string of nuclear accidents (just like as air transport required large numbers of crashes to achieve today's safety.)

Would that have been politically realistic? I think clearly it wouldn't have been. So don't complain about a level of regulation that nuclear requires in order to exist at all.

I don't buy this at all. First of all, even assuming these regulations were required at one time, it doesn't suppose that they're still needed today to keep nuclear reasonably safe--we could ostensibly lift much of that unnecessary regulation now that things are safe and allow nuclear to compete fairly.

Secondly, the whole point of anti-nuclear FUD is/was to make nuclear "politically unrealistic", so it doesn't make sense to argue that "political realism"--not FUD--is responsible for the high levels of regulation.

Thirdly, lots of countries (China, South Korea, etc) have had nuclear programs with much lower levels of regulation and far better economics, which goes to show that, absent FUD, nuclear power can be safe enough to be "politically realistic".