We got smarter people on here when it comes to nuclear power. A major issue that nuclear proponents don't like to talk about is what to do with the byproducts. They're radioactive for a long time and we've been playing Hot Potato with high level waste since the Manhattan Project. People who Want To Believe will generally mention thorium reactors about here but the most enthusiastic endorsement I've ever gotten out of any of the nuclear scientists I know has been "...yeah, maybe but there hasn't been a lot of compelling evidence to research it, really."

Bill McKibben dismisses nuclear power because without subsidy it's more expensive than coal or wind. "Subsidy", to my mind, is a great way to negate "externality" . I don't think the issue is that simple.

My father is decidedly pro nuclear power. But then, he once made a terrified trucker take 4 showers before he realized his geiger counter gave a false positive if he twisted the shield towards the sun. I'm of the opinion that most of the public discomfort with nuclear power comes from fear and distrust and that "dirty bombs" are a psychological weapon that works once at which point everyone figures out that the whole world is kinda radioactive and we deal with it just fine. But I'm also not entirely convinced that the very permanent and expensive drawbacks to nuclear power are negated by their efficiency and environmental friendliness.

In other words, I don't know what to think but I sure do think a lot.