I do agree, the "uranium supply" thing is largely a strawman.

However demanding that Nuclear power be babied with lavish long term federal subsides.

Gigantic R&D subsides
Gigantic Below-Market Loans
Cost overrun fund
Federal Purchase Agreements
Zero taxation of profits applied toward decomissioning the plant (About half the total plant cost)
AND a 1.8cent/kWh PTC

How much more do we have to do, to just declare it a Federal Monopoly.  (Like nearly all the other nations in the world that do Nuclear power.  UK, North Korea, China, Russia, France, Italy, Sweden, Germany to name a few.)

Although the total percentage of electricity deriven from wind and solar may be below 1% on a global level, there are various regions in Europe (in Denamrk and Germany for example) who derive 20-30% of their electricity from wind alone, and make a hefty profit.

Indeed, it is because most industrialized nations have failed to jump on the "wind wagon" that the wind industry, currently in its infancy, has so much economic and energy potential. If you have read the DOE's report on how wind energy can meet 20% of our electricity needs by 2030, you start to see why wind has been so attractive to investors (oilman T. Boone Pickens has recently just ordered 667 GE wind turbines). On the other hand, you have Warren Buffet (the richest man in the world) abandoning nuclear power plant projects because "they don't make economic sense."

And in reference to your chart, just because 200 GW of nuclear capacity was added within a decade doesn't mean construction for those plants began within that decade. Needless to say, construction time for nuclear plants remains to be a vexing problem.

It's a bit ironic to see Buffet referenced here as the all wise forward thinker. Keep in mind that his Mid America Energy was looking at the potential for new nuclear because they just finished an 800 MWe coal plant in Iowa. My guess is Warren is going to look at natural gas next.

"If you have read the DOE's report on how wind energy can meet 20% of our electricity needs by 2030, you start to see why wind has been so attractive to investors"

I did read all of it and I think it contradicts itself. But instead of my opinion, here's what FPL said at AWEA's meeting in Houston according to Platts' Electric Power Daily article on 6/2/08:

The biggest naysayer of the DOE projection was Michael O'Sullivan, the senior vice president for development at the nation's leading wind producer, FPL Energy. He said FPL will add roughly 1,200 MW of new wind capacity in the US this year, pushing the company's total to approximately 6,300 MW of capacity at 55 wind farms in 16 states.

According to O'Sullivan, growing wind capacity in the US to 20% of total generation by 2030, "just isn't going to happen." He argued that in the US there are no more than 20 states where a company can realistically build wind capacity. "You can't build it in Florida," he said, "nor can you build it in New England."

"Renewables are not cheap," O'Sullivan added. "And wind is a flawed product in the sense that it is intermittent, and is available only 30 to 40% of the time." He argued that it is "an energy displacement product." O'Sullivan said that no one is building coal or nuclear generation right now, and he said that if it were not for the fact that natural gas prices were on the rise, "I'm not sure we would be talking about 5,000 MW of new wind capacity last year."

Interesting...