This article is pretty much just hand-waving away any cost arguments against nuclear power. The author is saying that if we had modern designs of nuclear reactors they would be much cheaper, they're essentially comparing hypothetical reactor designs against real, existing wind and solar power. That is hardly a fair comparison.

The section on waste also feels disingenuous, they are directly equating waste from nuclear and solar/wind power by amount alone. The kinds of waste generated are not comparable at all, just comparing the amounts here as an argument against solar/wind makes me doubt the entire section.

I could tell by the website font that something was amiss with this site.

Scrolls down. “Help us fight for honesty in journalism and against the tyranny of the left.”

There it is. It’s funny how little design things like that can tip you off.

Low quality, meandering article devoid of references and citations. Makes no attempt to fairly assess the costs of nuclear, but hyper focuses on only the costs of other technologies which have been rapidly improving for decades much faster than nuclear.

> That professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution [from which Goddard held a grant to research rocket flight], does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.

From a NYT article from 1920, arguing the theory that rocket fuel can propel a rocket in space violates the laws of physics.