Energy Bill Aids Expansion of Atomic Power

If Atomic power really is economically viable in competition with wind, solar, biomass and so forth after all the end clean-up costs of atomic power are factored in, subsidies and guaranteed loans shouldn't be necessary.  It should be so clear to the investment community that atomic power will give a fair return on investment that money will be no problem.  Lets get real.  When you consider the cost of thousands of years of isolation for the resulting waste, there is no way atomic power can be viable.

This is ridiculous. We have been subsidizing this welfare case/boondoggle for corporate profits since the 50's. It's time they were cut loose.

Listen to yourselves. Hasn't solar, wind and other emerging technologies received benefits from  the same type of subsidies? Nuclear is not our enemy.

<p>I don't think this is so horrible. No, I'm not thrilled about 'subsidies' and the fact that I'm helping pay for them, but at the same time, I believe that our fossil-fuel based energy infrastructure needs a near-term update / replacement plan, and&nbsp;the only&nbsp;clear player (hold that thought) in that game is nuclear... which has been sidelined mostly due to events like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. </p><p>I'm not disagreeing with the premise of the earlier comments, but I do think that we need to really consider the reality of 'life', and recognize that there is no other accepted 'replacement power system for the whole country' concept in the minds of most people... and the preferred 'free' alternatives we all&nbsp;want must first get their whole act together in order to overcome this learning curve we face. Until that happens,&nbsp;NO technology choice -- regardless of how 'right' it is -- will be put in place, because people are resistent to change. </p><p>Nuke power is proven and prevalent. Until it gets unseated as the likely, next solution to our collective power-grid needs (our current 'understanding of how we get and use electricity) because of perception, our beloved alternatives will remain in development and as niche-market items. </p><p>This is the typical 'S-curve' implementation pattern of any new technology... regardless of how wonderful or perfect it is... it's more perception than anything. (Read any Harry S Dent book to find out more about S-curves). We've got some early adopters now. Great. But we don't have a business model that shows any one of these being able to stand up as a right-now replacement to our existing 'energy' needs -- electricity in the wall plug, in this case. </p><p>Hopefully, within about twenty years, the free market system will&nbsp;have made&nbsp;this a moot point. Until then, we need to promote and refine the alternatives until they prove themselves to 'the public', but still move ahead with existing methods of implementing 'power to the people' that fits in the world that we already live in. </p><p>We collectively tend to have a very narrow focus on how to move ahead, and unfortunately at this moment, there is no other alternative that most Americans would have enough understanding of how it might work in our / their current lifestyle. The alternatives are recent buzzwords to most people, and only seen as a new and up-and-coming way of living. That means... 20 years or more from now, it&nbsp;might be 'real'. </p><p>The free market, and smart and savvy entrepreneurs understand this and fight the good fight. Along the way, some win and some don't. Some great ideas won't make it into a replacement primarily for fossil sources... </p><p>In the meantime, we'll need some nuke plants to keep the lights on until we learn better. Yes, it's a waste of 'energy' but this is a process that we'll have to go through. </p><p>We need to remember this when we select the next group of politicians we want so that they'll NOT implement more government intervention, which will help that free market system kick into gear a bit earlier. </p>

<p>There is only one way: EDUCATION. The sun delivers 10,000 times more energy then we use. We could provide the whole energy with windmills for a lower price than nuclear or coal. So there is no energy problem. <a href="http://www.wind-energie.de/en/" target="_blank">http://www.wind-energie.de/en/</a>&nbsp; ....</p>

<p>I agree, all sources of energy receive various levels of subsidies in various forms.&nbsp; In particular nuclear wins all sorts of subsidies but has never been&nbsp;an economical choice even if you ignore in the waste issue.&nbsp; Here in CA a law was passed in the 1970s banning the construction of new nuclear plants until a long term storage facility has been constructed.&nbsp; There has not been a new license issued for any nuclear plant in the US since the early 1970s.&nbsp; A typical 900mw natural gas power plant costs around 400 million.&nbsp; A nuclear facility can be 2 to 4 billion.&nbsp; Wall street does not like nuclear given the cost.&nbsp; 2 billion can buy lots of energy efficiency, wind turbins, PV, etc. </p>