What has been argued is that the Nuclear companies don't care to run as well as they can, because they can just dump money into lobbyists to get congress off their backs.

We are getting into the land of what you want to see when you look at a situation.

Again, I understand industries can't run flawlessly. I'm not fucking retarded. So please stop trying to dumb it down. I just have a lot higher standard for nuclear for, what seems to me, pretty obvious reasons.

People make mistakes.

This is why I don't care for nuclear in the U.S. right now. I've said this many times now.

It's like I'm arguing with someone who wants me to change what I believe should be the standard in a certain situation. It's what I believe. Nuclear should be held to a lot higher standard than other industries. How else can I break this down to you? I've explained it like 6 different ways now. It's not opinion. It's not some scientific formula you can disprove.

Also, you still haven't answered where the power made by nuclear would be made up by.

Because it's a non issue. Sanders has clearly said he isn't going to go into office on day one and shut down every plant. They will be phased out overtime. That's your answer.

Back in California, I knew people who ran 100% off of their solar roof panels. And they actually had reserves. If that became the standard, I have a slight feeling, it'd make a big difference. It's going to take time. Nobody is arguing that, or that we need to pull the plug on nuclear tomorrow.

I'm looking forward to Mark III plants being fully worked out and possibly implemented. But we aren't there yet. Until then, we need to invest in renewable.

I keep trying to go to eia.gov, but it's not working for me tonight, so I can't go into hard numbers.