The federal government has to be the insurer of last resort for the time being. I think this is a very manageable risk.
Likewise to a lesser extent for construction costs. After the current construction in GA is done I think we'll have a much better idea of where we stand; remember that's the first expansion of our nuclear fleet in ~30 years and data from that project has the merit of being pretty current in terms of logistics, technique, and environmental/regulatory constraints, making it a better model than past white elephant projects.
I vote with my wallet; I put 6+ figures into SolarCity SolarBonds, I ride my legislators hard (showing up in person at their office to advocate for solar and wind tax credits), etc. If you believe in nuclear, I encourage you to do the same sort of activities.
That is a fair point. I disagree with you that nuclear is an option.
> I'm very much in favor of renewables, even subsidized renewables, but nuclear power really delivers in terms of capacity and I think it's a mistake to overlook this, notwithstanding its downsides.
How do you propose the following problems with nuclear be solved:
* Long term waste disposal
* Liability/insurance
* Funding for construction costs
* Completing construction of generation units in a reasonable timeframe (<10 years)
Without answers to the above, whether nuclear delivers with regards to capacity is a moot point.