> Have you seen that I've used the word "some" in my sentence ?

You don't make politics for "some" people. You make politics for the majority. Focusing on some minor group interest doesn't give you votes especially if their viewpoints contradict those of the majority. So what's your point there? It does not make any sense.

> You obviously know that the costs you refer to through this article do not include storage. Nor do not talk about the lifecycle carbon emissions.

Of course they do. This is the way decisions fall if you decide between several energy sources. You take everything in account and in the end you make a decision. The decision is: less nuclear.

Not the parent, but I don't think you can seriously argue that all political decisions are for the good of the many. Most decisions have a vocal minority and the majority doesn't care left or right, which means the minority has sway.

And, it's generally accepted that carbon life cycle studies show nuclear has the least carbon footprint, including everything from uranium mining to waste disposal. Wind and (especially) solar has a larger footprint than nuclear, but wind can come close in some studies. The biggest reason for this is because the energy in nuclear fuel is so enormously concentrated that so little is required, that it offsets the carbon footprint from construction, waste management and everything else, while wind and solar power consume quite a bit of energy during construction (and mining for raw materials).

> Not the parent, but I don't think you can seriously argue that all political decisions are for the good of the many.

If anybody comes here with the argument that it's a political decision without bringing any proof, he can't expect that others will assume an exceptional case. Especially not in a topic like this where it's about serious money and a very clear opinion of the majority.

> And, it's generally accepted that carbon life cycle studies show nuclear has the least carbon footprint

Just as it is generally accepted that we've drowned too much money into this, that this money invested into renewables decades ago would have made coal unnecessary by now, that the technology is very dangerous, that the overdue reactors should have been gone by now, that we don't know what to do with the thousands of tons of radioactive waste, that all that artificial hype around nuclear even though there is nobody in the civilized western world who wants to pay for a reactor these days which may be there in a decade and eat up ridiculous amounts of money producing expansive power is purely an lobbyist effort by a industry which can't face the fact that their technology is dead.

So please...please...spare me the phrases you copied elsewhere. I've read them before you guys are repeating them on and on without thinking one step further into the reality out there and it even stopped being amusing. You make me sad.