Because they have a software ecosystem that is well understood by just about everyone?

Then show me all the industrialists lining up to restart those reactors and take on the liability if they even still exist.

Or show me all the private equity looking to permit and build a $10B nuclear reactor and aren't asking for government subsidy or loan guarantees, because they know there is an ROI at the end of the road.

You cannot, because they don't exist. When nobody is looking to put their own capital at risk, it tells you what that "solution" is worth in the marketplace.

I assumed none of that. That's all you standing up a straw man.

You still are not accounting for the durability of renewal investment versus oil. When you buy solar and wind infrastructure, you have a very good chance of it still producing energy in 10 years.

An oil well can run dry tomorrow and all you have is a very expensive hole in the ground. Or, worse yet, something can malfunction on the oil well / drilling rig and kill people while ruining the environment, leaving you with a toxic mess and a very expensive hole in the ground.

Amazon would be very intrigued indeed to learn that they don't own Whole Foods, or do grocery delivery with those same vans.

You can try moving the goalposts all you want, but energy is energy. Larger vehicles can carry bigger batteries which allows you to do more things with the electricity. And what is preventing someone from driving a refrigerator compressor with the van's electrical capacity, other than you didn't think of it?

As it turns out, a fleet manager can do the math and figure out if a vehicle will work for them or not. And they can make a purchasing decision based on that understanding.

All of those failure modes are incredibly localized, with the prompt damage being the cumulative damage of structural issues. And I have homeowner insurance, so unless it physically hits me and kills me, it's an inconvenience in the large scale.

Meanwhile, you're trying to convince people that somehow diesel is different than oil, and that the Deepwater Horizon calamity didn't practically wipe out the fishing industry in the gulf coast and ruin hundreds of miles of beaches. And that as a course of normal operation of anything powered by oil (i.e. transportation, diesel generators, etc.) doesn't pump even more poison into the atmosphere, which will kill far more people than any windmill catastrophically failing from the downwind asthma effects - saying nothing about the climate change effects.

You should probably quit while you are behind.

Re: Diesel Exhaust Fluid;

Coal is not diesel. And do you know what DEF is? Highly purifed water and synthetic urea. Where does that urea come from? Ammonia, which is synthesized from natural gas feedstock.

Yay, now we're using two hydrocarbon fossil fuels (and creating all the pollution to extract and refine them) to try to make up for the pollution caused by just one.

Then you go off on some tangent about throwing shade at renewables, when you are comparing something that burns fossil fuels as a part of normal operations and releases pollutants as a part of normal operations, versus generation techniques where their pollution ended the second construction was completed.

There is no scenario where you get more energy from a lump of coal or a barrel of oil than it took to get that barrel of oil or lump of coal out of the ground. Meanwhile, solar and wind keep producing until they mechanically break, years (if not decades) later.

Guess what? Oil turned into polymers to create a wind turbine with years of operational lifetime generating many kW of electricity is a more efficient use of that oil than burning it and turning it into carbonized gas going up the flue, in order to harvest some heat.

What were you saying again about efficiency and ecology?

Idiot.

Funny how you people want to talk about all the fraud, but can't look at the biggest fraud in government fleecing us blind.

Maybe deal with the fraud in the White House that keeps trying to levy illegal taxes on the American public and pardoning convicted fraudsters, some of which actually pled guilty to their crimes.

If anyone believed that the GOP is the "party of fiscal responsibility" after what we've seen in the last 25 years, they:

A. are unbelievably stupid and uninformed, while sucking down a steady diet of propaganda;
B. are arguing in bad faith;
C. are a member of the GOP that cannot admit easily observed reality while putting a third middle-east war on the country's mountain of debt;
D. all of the above, while also cutting taxes on high wealth individuals and corporations to create even more dire fiscal circumstances to bitch and cry over while blaming others.

Good news: Trump's head being up his ass isn't the final disposition of things like this.

If they don't refund it, Total sues the government for breach of contract. And Total would win.

If you are thinking that energy is too expensive, you should probably not be advocating for nuclear.

Show a single nuclear generating station built in the west that hasn't gone massively over budget, and taken WAY too long to build in comparison to the stated timeframe.

There is a reason why so many windmills are being built. The people with the actual money know that there is a positive ROI, or they wouldn't be doing it.

Oil gets a subsidy of $34B to $35B each year.

Wind power construction got a subsidy of 31.4B in 2024. And we still have the windmills those billions paid for here in 2025 and 2026. Can you say the same for the oil extracted in 2024?

You are justifying subsidy on single-use oil while bitching about subsidy of actual infrastructure that keeps paying back after it's been spent. This makes you very stupid.

Hyperbolic in the best case, ridiculously stupid in every case but that one.

a.k.a [citation needed]

We are losing the war.

Iran is still able to reach their strategic goal: cause as much economic pain as possible until the US and Israel knock it off.

US / Israel strategic goals (stated at various points in the last month) that cannot be met with aerial bombardment alone (or, at least, never have in the history of aerial bombardment):
- regime change
- opening the Strait of Hormuz, which wouldn't be closed if Trump and War Criminal Netanyahu had not started a war
- "saving" Iranian civilians from their government
- "obliterating" Iran's nuclear capability (do we even know where they stashed their uranium hexaflouride gas stockpile before it was "obliterated" 6 months ago?)
- destroying Iran's missile infrastructure (they are still shooting missiles, and at targets farther away than they've previously attempted)
- destroying Iran's drone infrastructure (they are still blowing shit up with drones, including critical energy infrastructure)
- protecting global oil supplies - which wouldn't be threatened if they didn't start an illegal war of choice
- "imminent attacks" that were neither imminent, nor an attack on anything remotely deserving of a full-scale airborne bombardment campaign

We will not achieve any of those things, other than maybe getting the Strait of Hormuz back open if we hurry up and TACO out of this thing TODAY.

Also, nobody was ever freed by an aerial bombardment campaign. Ever.

It requires invasion, occupation, and installing a different government. See: the Marshall Plan.