> That has a lot to do with how old many nuclear reactors are and that we have zero spare capacity much of time. People who are anti-nuclear have failed to realize how much of the problems are caused by rampant anti-nuclearism.

When they were new and before the regulations they were on less than half the time. Another lie

> You forget that nuclear is the safest or form of energy that we have. The number of deaths from nuclear energy is remarkably small. Sure, we can still insist on insane levels of safety, but we should not then turn around and demonize the end result. If we insist on these regulations, then we should also insist that people be aware of what is driving these costs, and make it a positive thing.

There it is. Right on cue, after already being calledout for it.

You're demanding free insurance. The insurer gets to set the policy on likelihood to destroy a city. Stop crying or findyour own insurance.

Also this is a myth. Solar is now the safest by a factor of two. Then wind. You continue to lie about everything.

If you include all the deaths from mining waste dumping and lung cancer of uranium miners, eye witness reports of chernobyl liquidators rather than official ussr reports, and the hundreds of unremediated sites that are less than 1% of their final age, then hydro beats it too.