I tend to support nuclear power when compared to the alternatives.  most of the problems with nuclear are political, not scientific, and the only really tough one to solve is proliferation.  I don't view reactor safety as an issue at all, and waste is solvable technically (if not politically).

there will not be a single "silver bullet" in the climate change debate, but I think that nuclear will play an important role in helping us solving the problem.

When costing nuclear:

Insurance -- the market simply won't insure nuclear power, the govt does it.

R&D -- the US nuclear industry is an offshoot of weapons and propulsion research for the military, nothing more.

Waste disposal -- Nevada taxpayers paying to foul their own water.  Nice work, if you can get it.

If solar and wind had the kind of subsidies that nuclear has, you'd see those numbers above flip quickly.

As you say, dbinid, learn.  Think.

Insurance?  You think owners/operators of nuclear power plants operate without liability insurance? ! ?

R&D:  don't understand your point ... ?  Maybe you would enjoy studying the history of the National Reactor Testing Station, which later had other names and is now known as the Idaho National Laboratory.  A fifty year history, 50-ish some odd reactors built, pushed to limits, fuel tested, all to learn lessons needed to enable commercial nuclear power.  The Idaho site never had anything to do with weapons (Los Alamos, Livermore, Oak Ridge, Hanford ... those are the Weapons labs).

Subsidies?  What nuclear subsidies?  The trivial support in EPACT05 to pay for losses incurred for the first few reactors if their opening is slowed by government liscensing delays?  That's not subsidy, that's the government covering risks created by the government's own new untested liscensing process.  Maybe you don't know what "subsidy" means.  Or, maybe you're thinking of ethanol which can't even exist subsidies.  Or, maybe you don't remember the wind industry collapsing when its Carter-era tax credits expired?

David Roberts wrote: Nuclear: re-evaluated and still sucky

Who re-evaluated nuclear, and in what way(s) did he/they find it wanting?

dbinid writes

Insurance?  You think owners/operators of nuclear power plants operate without liability insurance? ! ?

Yes--under Price-Anderson, nuke owners are absolved from all liability over $540 million.
----------------------------------------------

R&D and subsidies:

for more on subsidies, see your own response to the comment on R&D.  
================

As for "the government covering risks created by the government's own new untested liscensing process," do you propose eliminating the licensing system and regulating nuclear power through tort?  Not many nuclear industry officials I know would agree with that.

but today they are; they profit from fossil fuels.

80 percent of electricity production in France comes from nukes.

They do it right and they do it well.

This country has been retarded by neer-do-well hippies.

The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.