There was a period when being a pro nuclear liberal/central-left politician was politically suicidal.

> connected the dots and shown that had any tangible effect.

It’s not my job to put in significant amount of effort to try and change your opinion (which is worth exactly as much as mine is).

> The nuclear renaissance was going great

That’s an exaggeration. Even back then nuclear was hardly seen as cost effective without a lot of squinting. The number of new reactors was hardly significant.

> Public opinion isn't driving any of that

You mean currently? Perhaps. Don’t see how is that an argument when talking about the 80s.

> Public opinion doesn't seem to have any effect on that

That obviously not true. Unless you ignore how, when and by whom the decisions to close the remaining nuclear reactors in e.g. Germany were made. Especially considering that then (before cheap renewables were available) we already knew that nuclear was cost competitive if negative externalities are accounted for (which was only partially the case back in the 80s).

You cannot show any good evidence for it, though. You can merely assert correlation (if a bad one, given that nuclear was in trouble long before TMI or Chernobyl).

It's clear what's going on here: the actual situation, that nuclear has failed economically, is completely unacceptable to you, so you are confabulating a fantasy that something else caused nuclear's troubles. It's wishful denial of reality to preserve the illusion that your energy waifu has any chance.

Surely you must be trolling? Or you just can’t read? How many times did I repeat that?

> It's wishful denial of reality

I mean you are literally looking and what I wrote and seeing words that are not there.