Both these things can be true. The investors are off the hook if a major crisis ensues, but they pay for insurance to cover up to the cap established by price-anderson
My objection to nuclear is that I don't want to bear the liability as a taxpayer. That and it is expensive and a terrorist target. I don't see the upside,

not exactly numbers but it speaks to the issue. I for one, as a taxpayer, do not want to be on the hook for anymore foolish nuclear adventures.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fthebulletin.org%2F2023%2F0...

There is nothing illogical about opposing nuclear power. Quite the contrary. It is not logical to pay more for something that involves the possibility of catastrophic failure. Plenty of people are happy to put others at risk in the service of their pursuit of profits. That is called corruption. The insurance industry does not make ideological decisions. They base their calculations on data. The possibility of a multi BILLION dollar accident is enough of a reason to seek the many practical alternatives. It is not surprising that most republicans and some Democrats support it. They all supported slavery at one point too. That does not mean these things are correct.

So why would you want to pay more for your energy and put your whole community at risk? That is the question. It does not seem like a very good deal to me. Nuclear power is low carbon, but it is not renewable. The total cost of ownership clearly favors renewables. Every building can be a net energy producer. The power company becomes a power broker where they buy and sell power depending on local conditions. We already have a program where the grid can rent a portion of your home battery so they can use them to shave peaks instead of firing up the gas plants. Alphabet has a plant that can ramp its geothermal power up and down to complement solar, eliminating the need for peaker plants.

It is hard to put a dollar value on resilience, but the distributed model of solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal along with home batteries is much more resilient. During a storm or natural disaster, there is no single point of failure. A typical electric car could power the average home for days, Since cars spend 90% of the time parked on average, the vast pool of storage available through bidirectional charging will provide us with plenty of storage to eliminate the peaks in power demand. A study showed that only 5 to 10% of electric car owners would need to participate to eliminate all peaker plants. Given the financial incentives, it is not hard to imagine much higher participation. 50% participation could run the grid for days.

Another myth that needs to dispelled is the idea that renewable power is weak and fragile, that we would need to curtail our energy rich lifestyle. We already have periods of time in many places where the power regularly rates go negative in the middle of the day because of excess power. We are adding renewable power at a tremendous rate. Power in the future will be cheap and plentiful. My house already powers itself for most of the year. (power, hot water, central air) It was a big investment, but in another couple of years, it will have paid for itself in full, so after that it is just maintenance. We have looked at a couple battery proposals, but still holding off as prices fall. With the batteries and a few more panels, we will be self sustaining.

Advocating for nuclear power will not age well. The difference in cost will only increase. So they want to take a nuclear plant that has already been built and stand it up? I oppose it, but the people who already paid taxes to fund its construction might feel differently. I get that. But it is not a trend, or a wholesale change of policy.

Have a nice day

"If solar power solved all of our problems then no elected Democrat would agree to fund a nuclear power plant."

You put a lot of faith in government and you make it seem like it is some monolithic entity that acts in logical ways. Truth is the government of the people, by the people is a hot mess. Nothing shocking there. When it comes to energy, the MAJORITY of non petroleum investments have been in wind and solar. The fact that a couple of nuclear projects have been revived is interesting, but still the MAJORITY of the funding is going toward solar wind and storage. We still spend too much on fossil fuels, but the change is coming.

There is more than enough solar wind and geothermal to power our future of abundance. There are some very persuasive propagandist that convince people this is not true, but anyone who actually looks at the numbers will see the truth. I live in a fairly northern latitude and yet the 38 panels that don't even cover the whole roof provide everything we need for most of the year. In this country All we need to cover is the parking lot and warehouses and we would be good. It is less than 1% of the area. Solar power is the cheapest form of power and the price is still dropping. You don't need any security. no one is going to make dirty bombs from the solar panels. Yes the sources are intermittent, but that is a much easier problem to solve than dealing with toxic radioactive time bombs that need to be secured and fussed over a lot.

Nuclear is good to study. It might make sense for spacecraft or above the arctic circle, but it make zero sense anywhere near population centers.

You are going cite what a political party does as proof of some sort of scientific consensus? That's rich. The democrats under Biden also transformed the country into the worlds biggest oil producer.

Dams don't have specific waiver of liability like nuclear plants do. Nuclear power is a product of war and is only around to justify massive military spending.

Nuclear power is VERY EXPENSIVE. It alway will be. the fuel is expensive to produce and transport and store. It demands that a government entity stand up a massive security operation because of the danger of terrorism. It need to be centrally produced and distributed. It presents a danger in the form of radioactive waste long after it has been useful.

Solar and wind will rule the day and sooner than everyone imagines. We already have excess power at peak times and people are already figuring out business models of what to do with it. Soon enough we will have more renewable power than we know what to do with in spite of the luddites.

I will be in total support of the first nuclear plant that has an insurance policy. Unfortunately it has NEVER HAPPENED. We the taxpayers are alway on the hook. So it is classic crony corruption. Private profits - public risk. Great for the shareholders / sucks for the rest of us.

We already have a great fusion plant at a safe distance, it is called "the sun".

I was not talking about synths at all. I was comparing using microphones with digital vs analogue recording equiptment

If you had a few hundred thousand dollars tied up in analogue equipment you would champion it's "superiority" too. That and resistance to change. Don't get me wrong the guy makes great sounding records. but I doubt if Steve or anyone else for that matter could pass a double blind test and identify analoge from high end digital.