In contrast, subsidies for different energy sources are 23.1 cents/kWh for solar, 3.5 cents/kWh for wind, and 0.2 cents/kWh for nuclear. (Tables ES4 and ES4. Solar received $4.393 billion in subsidies while generating 19,000 GWh. Wind received $5.936 billion while generating 5,936 GWh, and nuclear received $1.66 billion while generating 789,000 GWh.) That's right. The subsidy for solar is 1650x more expensive than cleaning up nuclear accidents. The subsidy for wind is 250x more expensive.
[...] Statistically, per unit of energy generated, nuclear power is the safest power source man has invented.
BLESS YOU for bringing forward subsidy per units of energy produced.
I'd like to Krazy-Glue some of these Slashdot posters to the wall and dangle a bottle of nail polish remover in front of them, to be handed over after they answer the question: "Would YOU personally pay ~115 times more for solar, and ~17 times as much for wind?" I should be allowed to glue my poster. I should be allowed to think.
Glad to see you got modded up in general, but sad to see the only commenters you get repeat that "economics don't work out" yarn they heard somewhere and repeat only when emotional appeals will not work. Deep down they just do not like nuclear energy and will grasp at anything. As it stands... to completely green-field Three Mile Island Unit 2, there have been estimates of ~$918 million, of which ~$665 is in the bank. That ~$253 million deficit is hardly worth crowing about... and I strongly suspect that 918 million is the 'Epi-Pen' price, you know, the amount things cost if you lock the most greedy, opportunistic people together in a room and don't let them out until they deliver a nice pork barrel. These things could (and should) be done for less.