We Need a Nuclear New Deal, Not a Green New Deal
First off, you can have both.  Green new deal doesn't ban reactors or anything.<p>Second, I'm on the fence over whether I support more reactors and not because nuclear==bad.  I trust the technology, but my concern is whether we can maintain a stable political environment for the decades/hundred years required to responsibly take care of nuclear.<p>Buying into a fission reactor means you pay billions up front, but you also promise to pay billions in upkeep, and then pay billions for decomissioning.  If you aren't willing to do that upkeep or clean up after yourself then you can cause a radiological disaster.<p>What happens if we have a majority government that refuses to believe in the long term effects of radiation damage even as scientists explain to them over and over again what will happen?  They just don't see why we should be spending that amount of money on reactor decomissioning or on upkeep and don't want to be seen as the one spending taxpayer money on something so costly.  What if they decide to cut nuclear safety programs in a political stunt?  I wish I could say that I know that won't happen, but on the hundred years in the future scale I'm just not sure.<p>Nuclear is amazing and could solve all of our short term energy needs, but it's ultimately people and our political structures that I don't trust, not the science.