The Green Party has been against nuclear for years.
I’m just tiptoeing into this thread but it seems like the disagreement between these two posters is messaging. They want the same thing. One wants to tell it like it is, full story. The other leads with a manufactured metric that excludes a bunch of stuff. Then when called out on it, says oh I count it over here see.
It is kind of like adjusted earnings vs GAAP EPS.
I think when you’re trying to sway public policy and you lead with misleading metrics, then people’s eyebrows are raised. And rightfully so if we’re being honest given the last several years of public policy.
As Charlie Munger would say, show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcomes. I’m shocked that a Wall St firm ideally positioned to benefit from tens or hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies supports the massive rollout of this stuff and supports it via a massaged metric that conveniently excludes a lot of the costs.
I support the honest messaging. It shouldn’t require some funny stuff that excludes all the real costs if it’s really worthwhile.