Reply #1: All I can think of is two words for Nuclear Power:

[ShortnFiery]

Money Pit

http://www.nonukes.org/r08truec.htm

Fiscal Fission finds that the $492 billion total represents a minimum figure for resources spent on nuclear power through 1990. Excluded costs, such as health effects of radiation, accidents, adequate insurance, could well total another $375 billion. This figure does not include the almost certain escalation in future waste and decommissioning costs.


http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=2725

Many other technologies can deliver more low-carbon power at far less cost. As a 2003 MIT study, "The Future of Nuclear Energy," concluded: "The prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited" by many "unresolved problems," of which "high relative cost" is only one. Others include environment, safety and health issues, nuclear proliferation concerns, and the challenge of long-term waste management.

Since new nuclear power now costs more than double what the MIT report assumed -- three times what the Economist called "too costly to matter" -- let me focus solely on the unresolved problem of cost. While safety, proliferation and waste issues get most of the publicity, nuclear plants have become so expensive that cost overwhelms the other problems.

Already nuclear energy, the sequel, is a source of major confusion in the popular press. Consider this recent interview between Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria and Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, who is now a strong advocate for nuclear power. Zakaria asks, "A number of analyses say that nuclear power isn't cost competitive, and that without government subsidies, there's no real market for it."

Nuclear power, a mature industry providing 20 percent of U.S. power, has received some $100 billion in U.S. subsidies -- more than three times the subsidies of wind and solar, even though they are both emerging industries. And how can one possibly ignore the capital costs of arguably the most capital-intensive form of energy?