It's actually quite common, I've experienced it personally many times because I am interested in the topic. Their price is basically uneconomical, and the argument in the end always boils down that the danger aspect is overblown, thus making them safe to an unnecessary degree. Example, first sentence in the article:

> Should any discussion of nuclear power go on for long enough, it becomes inevitable that someone will rant that the only reason it has become unaffordable is a proliferation of safety regulations.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plan...

This would have needed to happen a long time ago to have the altnerative energy sources in production today. Which also begs another counterfactual scenario: what if we had spent even a slightly larger fraction of the taxpayer r&d subsidies on renewables rather than the extremely capital heavy nuclear research on both military and civilian sectors, with many decades long dead-ends (breeders, gas cooled, liquid cooled, fission, etc), we'd be decades further along with solar and wind.

Right, if only the world would have thousands of nuclear plants more, the danger of one blowing up in a war would decrease substantially.