If she is eager to learn, she can probably work out enough on her own to get a decent idea of way the problem is analyzed. The source doesn't include external costs like risk transfer or a full accounting of the environmental consequences across the full fuel cycle; it is strictly the work of an accountant working out a comprehensive estimate of the range of probably costs associated with nuclear new build in the US.
It would also be good to explain what is behind references to how inexpensive energy from the present nuclear fleet is. Those electricity costs could be likened to the use you get out of a car after it is paid off - and it comes with the same sort of increased probability of failure.
The paper is: ' Business Risks and Costs of New Nuclear Power' by raig A. Severance, a practicing CPA with relevant expertise in the energy area.
A write up and link to download the paper is here:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/01/05/202859/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
Key points are here, with the rest of the paper functioning to explain and put these items in perspective.
Building a fuel cell car sounds like a pretty ambitious project given the costs involved but it is certainly a commendable goal.
The use of hydrogen for transportation does, however, provide a point of entry for a discussion on the overall approach to energy use and the roll of energy efficiency not only at the point of end use consumption, but also in the way the larger 'energy to work' system is designed. In this case, there is a substantial penalty efficiency penalty associated with H2 for personal transportation that, given present technologies, would require at least 60% more noncarbon energy generating infrastructure to be built than would battery electric. There are, of course, offsetting advantages for fuel cells, but from a system perspective the technology we choose makes a very significant difference; and that is true in many areas.
Hope this helps.