Huh, and here I thought TMI, Chernobyl and Fu-koshima had something to do with it....
All that said, nukes are the most expensive way to generate power right now. Advanced nuclear comes in at 8 c/kw, and combined solar / storage at a nickel. Solar alone is 3 c and under, wind at 4 c, combined cycle gas at 4 c.
The lowest steady supply generation is geothermal.
Why nukes if they are twice as expensive as standalone solar, and 60% more expensive that solar / storage combined?
(see Table 1b at
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf)
3 Mile Island from the 70s? Chernobly where the Commies cut every corner? Explain with specificity why our energy policies should be driven by isolated instances multiple decades in the past?
Give the class a run down of what bad happened a Fu-koshima. It shut down like it should when flooded. Don't build any power plants in areas when tsunamis are problemmatic.
France is a great reason for nukes and Germany is a great reason for nukes.
One has them (France) has Nuke power and is pretty immune to Russky energy games and one of them gave up Nuke power (Germany) and is getting bent over by Russky energy games.
The Germans do have lots of pretty windmills for tilting but now are going back to burning the dirtiest brown coal on the planet.
Subsidised wind power costs are not even a real arguement and solar storage simply does not exist in the real world.
But solar does have a tremendously large footprint that can be seen from space.
Wake me up when solar or wind can reliably power a carrier or sub.
And you get extra credit for the Biden Administration EIA cite.
