re: #215 MR_J

Before the meat of the post, just to let you all know I’m in favor of a mixed energy economy, we should be doing everything in our power to promote alternatives to fossil fuels, nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar…with that said.

It’s popular to blame leftists and greens for the lack of nuclear construction here in the States, but folks let’s get real, for 8 of the last 9 years Big Energy lobbyists were writing energy legislation for the White House. If Big Energy wanted to build nuclear power plants they would have done so and there would be little for Green Peace or the Sierra Club to do about it but complain on PBS.

The real reason that there haven’t been any new nuclear plants here in decades…COST. Fuel expenses may be low, but the cost of constructing and then decommissioning a nuclear power plant makes them unattractive in a market with a rather low profit margin. It would take years to see a profit off the construction of a plant. (Assuming that the plant was somehow built on schedule and on budget which it wouldn’t be) No one wants to assume the liability. This is the market at work, pure and simple.

The only way that private companies are going to build nuclear power-plants is with massive government subsidies…so if you want nuclear power prepare for the price tag.

Sorry but part of that’s untrue. If you factor in complete life cycle for a nuclear plant you have to do the same for oil, gas, and coal. The only two energy sources that come close to nuclear are coal and hydro.
I do agree with you however that big oil definitely wants to keep nuclear out of their market share, and it’s instructional that they fund the Heartland institute on one hand to create global warming denialism, and they fund the fringe green groups on the other hand in some cases to create opposition to new nukes whenever one looks like it might get built.