The *perceived* cost of a nuke plant is greatly exaggerated because almost all of the cost of building, running, and maintaining the plant and disposing of the waste is passed on to the rate payer as line items on the electric bill. For example, I pay some 50 cents a month as my share of disposing of waste generated by the San Onofre nuclear generating station. Only the cost of enriching the fuel is subsidized by the taxpayer.
On the other hand, the entire cost of building a dam for hydroelectric power is borne by the taxpayer on his/her *tax* bill and is not perceived as a cost of electricity. The cost of disposing of coal waste is borne by the people living downwind of the plant on their *medical* bills and house *repair* bills, and, again, is not perceived as a cost of electricity. The cost of combating terrorism (e.g., the war in Iraq) is, again, part of the *tax* bill, not the cost of petroleum for generating energy. The costs of “alternative” electricity are subsidized to a great extent by tax incentives and once again, appears on your *tax* bill and not listed as such, disguising the true cost of these sources.
If you compare the *true* costs of all forms of electricity generation fairly, including all construction costs, disposal costs, and ancillary costs you will find that nuclear power is the cheapest of all of our alternatives per kilowatt-hour.
Also if you fairly compare the safety factors you will find that nuclear power is the safest alternative, too.
I condemn the greens for killing nuclear power and then complaining about CO2! What HYPOCRICY!!!
