Comment: Incorrect. Or rather, mostly incorrect.

(See in situ)


Incorrect. Or rather, mostly incorrect.

"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[7] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950-2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefitted most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefitted heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefitted from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefitted from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total."

So, as you can see, nuclear power is the LEAST subsidized form of energy production...and fossil fuels are the most subsidized.

When you consider that nuclear power is also the most heavily regulated BY FAR, I would say that nuclear power holds it's own in terms of cost. Get rid of the draconian regulation and nuclear might not need subsidies at all.

Besides, I was not addressing cost...only safety. But thank you for helping me bust another myth about nuclear power.