I don't understand your comment. You seem to be indicating that I am somehow opposed the wide use of solar or that I support wide use of nuclear power - neither of which is the case. I'm just saying that steam turbines being "non-profitable" is not a consideration in whether or not to use them.
You're proposing using laws or tax payer money to subsidize certain power generation. That's bound to lead to issues, like for example the now cancelled Virgil C. Summer.
All economic systems (with division of labor) are arrangements in which the efforts and the products of people's work are channeled in certain avenues. Laws and taxes are just some particular mechanisms within such systems. You (or I) might find certain laws or taxes beneficial or detrimental of course.
Anyway, if the use of steam turbines is justifiable in terms of feasibility, efficiency, safety, costs (monetary or otherwise) etc. - then it is justifiable, period; and if it isn't, then it isn't. And the same goes for nuclear power plants. Otherwise you're arguing that we shouldn't use technology X because some US state is too corrupt to make it work. If that's your argument, I understand where you're coming from, but - USers should fix _that_ problem, not suggest that we forego the technology entirely.
