In the last 25 years, Social Security has collected more in taxes than it has paid out. The Social Security Trust fund currently stands at $ 2.4 trillion in assets. Current actuarial projections are for it to continue to pay obligations until 2037. Minor adjustments (such as increasing the wage base) can make it viable much longer.
Much different than a ponzi scheme.

I agree that a spreadsheet which has been well used and tested will have most of the obvious bugs worked out of it. However, it can't really be shown to be free of errors in the same way database procedural logic can be tested. It is also easier to do proper data input checking on a database to avoid "loose nut behind the keyboard" problems. You are right, though, that you have to test everything. It's just much easier to do properly with a database.

If all you know how to use is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

I guess it's time for me to repeat my rant about people using spreadsheets to do work which properly belongs in a database.
It's really impossible to properly audit or verify a spreadsheet. They are so easy to corrupt with improper references and random data entry. Spreadsheets are only widespread because most office drones don't have a clue about proper data management. I shudder whenever I see someone using a spreadsheet to make important business decisions because I know there are errors in every non-trivial spreadsheet.

The main problem with "Office compatibility" has been Microsoft itself. I have found that OO.org and LibreOffice have much better compatibility of MS Office formats than MS Office itself. I often come across documents which open fine in LibreOffice but which have problems in one of the many MS Office versions.
MS Office is such a mess of a "standard" that Microsoft can't even get it right for Office compatibility but LibreOffice often does a better job.

Thanks for this information. I had no idea that the BAS was a political organization. They seem to try to present themselves as a "scientific" organization. Oh well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this revelation.
So, if the BAS is promoting nuclear power then I should probably take their estimate of $5,000 / Kw nuclear power plant construction cost as an understatement of the real cost. This makes my argument stronger. Wind and solar are even cheaper than nuclear. It seems that the people who have to finance nuclear power have figured this out already and that is why there is no great rush to build nuclear plants in the US in spite of generous government subsidies.

The "Bulletin" used the term "overnight cost" which I found interesting so I googled it. It refers to the cost of the project without adding in the cost of interest on the money borrowed during construction. It is as if the project was built "overnight".
We know that nuclear plants have very long construction times (5-10 years) so the overnight cost drastically understates the cost of the project. Solar and wind, on the other hand have much shorter construction times (less than a year in most cases) so the overnight cost is close to the actual cost.
As far as land costs go, land is cheap (especially in Nevada) and is a very small part of the cost of any power plant. Most solar is installed on existing roofs so no land cost there. Even large scale solar plants like those in the California and Nevada desert don't use much land and the land is a very small part of the cost of the plant.

Since you accused me of falling for the "propaganda", I don't have high hopes for a rational discussion but I'll give it a try.
First, the "propaganda" I used was from the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" which appears to be a reliable scientific source. I have also used other widely published (Google it) estimates of the cost of wind and solar. You are right in stating that solar and wind don't provide continuous power but your estimate of 10-15% is too low. Also, it doesn't really matter that solar doesn't generate power at night since there is already too much power available at night. The electric companies can't even give it away at bargain basement rates. Solar power does, however, generate power during times of peak demand (and peak prices) so there is no need for storage. Your estimates of storage losses are also too high but storage is not necessary for solar power.
I'm afraid that the market has spoken. Nuclear power is just too expensive.

Interesting to see in the "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists" link from the summary that the "overnight" (without construction interest) cost of a nuclear plant has risen from $1,200 per KW to $5,000 per Kw in the past 10 years. This is more than the current costs for solar or wind power. This economic fact alone doesn't bode well for the nuclear industry.

I just came across this "health news" item:

"Hospitals increasingly are mining patients' health and financial records to market specialty services such as cancer, cardiac and orthopedic care to a targeted group of individuals, Kaiser Health News/USA Today reports.
To develop the targeted mailings, hospitals use patient data, as well as detailed information on local residents that they purchase from consumer marketing firms."

I think we are on a very steep slippery slope and I would not be as complacent as you seem to be.