> 1) Extrememly high construction costs and cost overruns

This is like pushing someone off a cliff and then accusing them of being clumsy.

We MAKE nuclear plant construction expensive. We shut down storage facilities, we ban transport of fuel, we have environmental groups file lawsuits for even aspect of the environmental review, we have local mom's groups protest and sue for everything under the sun... we force reactors to meet 1970s rules on safety that no longer have meaning - we have local politicians rally and protest and cut funding whenever they can.

WE MAKE NUCLEAR EXPENSIVE.

China builds identical Gen III+ nuclear reactors for less than one-tenth the price - using Western construction companies. ...and they currently have 24 One Gigawatt plants under construction and due to complete this decade.

> 2) Requires more cooling water than any other power source

This isn't a severe problem. I'm not even sure why this is on your list. The water "used" by the reactor isn't consumed in any way. It goes in one side, and comes right back out the other side of the reactor chamber.

> 3) Highly radioactive 'spent fuel' must be stored indefinitely.

One barrel of spent fuel per reactor per year. That's it. You could put all the spent fuel from ALL the US reactors, even if we went to 100% nuclear in the ONE facility in Yucca Mountain. It's safe, geologically stable, and has more than enough space. This is not a science or engineering problem. This is a public ignorance problem.

> 4) Uranium ore mining and processing consumes significant energy, of the fossil fuel form typically.

Per unit of energy produced, it consumes far less than the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, hydro dams, or any other power source. This argument is a positive for nuclear.

> 5) Catastrophic failure scenarios (Fukushima, Chernobyl).

This is like comparing leeches to penicillin. Fukushima and Chernobyl were designed in the 1950s. They were both the first generation of reactors which had poor safety designs. Today's GenIII+ reactors have passive safety systems that mean you need to actively keep the reactor from turning off. If the plant losses power, or is attacked by terrorists, or the entire population turns into zombies - the reactor turns off. These passive safety systems are now standard on all new reactors. The containment pool is so safe these days, that divers actually dive in the - you can literally swim in them.

> 6) Major security issues with high costs.

Is this a reference to possible theft of fissile material? Uranium fuel isn't kept in the plant, unless it's in the reactor. No one has ever broken into a facility to steal uranium to make a small dirty bomb (you cannot make real hydrogen bomb with uranium from a reactor). It would be easier to conduct a normal terrorist attack than to break into a nuclear plant, escape, and then assemble and deliver a bomb somewhere. This just isn't a very thoughtful idea. It would be easier to just shoot a bunch of people with a machine gun.

> 7) Poor compatibility with intermittent and varying energy sources (i.e. solar, wind), as does coal.

This is a commonly repeated lie. A nuclear plant can output whatever power is needed. There's no "compatibility" issue at all. The genesis of this notion is that once the Uranium is enriched, it's generating heat whether that's used or not - and that's true - but the point is the energy density of Uranium is so high, that this "waste" still makes it orders of magnitude more productive than any other source of energy.

> All in all the nuclear experiment looks like a complete failure

It looks more like the fearmongering has been a complete success. It's bizarre that people still believe the nonsense you posted here.