Will, I’m for being responsible about the environment and statistical safety for people, and, “energy” is the only money (everything comes from some type energy). I believe fission is an alternative that can not only be safest and most environmentally friendly but also 1) might be possible to be the lowest cost structure per joule, we don’t know potentials unless we can move past old prejudices to at least discuss innovations and 2) offer quicker political/economy independence from fossil. I live in Texas where we do put scale solar and wind farms in our backyard (Texas is 1/3 wind and solar powered, the leader, and 5% fission … so all told 40% nuclear). It seems to me if we can get past sentiment that nuclear power (which includes wind and solar as direct byproducts of nuclear fusion) is a “trifecta” — I am awed, impressed and intensely curious as to how nuclear power managed to achieve such a sustained worldwide broad prejudice against reviewing it dispassionately as systems, knowledge and alternatives evolve. Thanks for trying to keep conversation possible.

Also, since wind, solar and photosynthesis are possible because of nearby nuclear fusion reactor should we include all mortality and material damages from that reactor as nuclear dangers and costs?