Isn't It Obvious.

I'm assuming the poster is referring to the fact that nuclear power, as an potentially extremely dangerous power source, cannot be utilized safely without numerous safety measures. Numerous, costly, safety measures. That's just not profitable when hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent to keep a plant from going meltdown. Skim here, cut a corner here, and it becomes profitable, and a recipe for disaster. This is also exactly the problem with oil. It's just not a good return on investment when that investment is being "eaten up" by keeping the environment and human resources safe and healthy. Oil is even worse however, in that it isn't as renewable as nuclear power.

I advocate nuclear power in that it is a decent alternative to oil. It's not particularly safe, but "power" holds no connotations of easily controlled substances (even solar, hydroelectric, and wind, which just aren't reliable enough to profitable yet, though all are safer than nuclear). If we had a little foresight we would be able to utilize nuclear power safely and effectively, and it can be done. I've never heard of a meltdown in France, which gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power (www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html).