Estimates are that it costs roughly anywhere from 6-10 billion dollars to build a modern nuclear power plant. And since they usually find a hard time locating private financing to build, government subsidy will have to pick up most of the bill.

The Republicans just released and energy plan that calls for 100 to be built by 2030. That would come around to be about 600 billion to 1 trillion dollars worth of government subsidy over a 20 year period. So those who want this to happen should not be griping about the cost. This would be the way Republicans think infrastructure money should be spent, so please leave the bullsh*t double talk at home.

The downside is that Uranium, Potassium, and Plutonium isotopes aren't going to be in infinite abundance, so the full switch to solar or hydrogen power by the middle of the century will have had to happen if Nuclear is chosen as the fuel to ween us off of oil and on to H2 and photons.

Before my friends on the left start berating me on possible environmental side effects of this type of energy. I will gladly say that I will take a 20 square mile no-go zone, after a possible meltdown, than an atmosphere completely choked with CO2. There hasn't been a single international crisis over a plant meltdown since Chernobyl, and that was more because of shoddy construction and safety standards in the former Soviet Union, than problems with the energy source itself.

Feel free to discuss. Just try to keep it civil.

Estimates are that it costs roughly anywhere from 6-10 billion dollars to build a modern nuclear power plant. And since they usually find a hard time locating private financing to build, government subsidy will have to pick up most of the bill.

The Republicans just released and energy plan that calls for 100 to be built by 2030. That would come around to be about 600 billion to 1 trillion dollars worth of government subsidy over a 20 year period. So those who want this to happen should not be griping about the cost. This would be the way Republicans think infrastructure money should be spent, so please leave the bullsh*t double talk at home.

The downside is that Uranium, Potassium, and Plutonium isotopes aren't going to be in infinite abundance, so the full switch to solar or hydrogen power by the middle of the century will have had to happen if Nuclear is chosen as the fuel to ween us off of oil and on to H2 and photons.

Before my friends on the left start berating me on possible environmental side effects of this type of energy. I will gladly say that I will take a 20 square mile no-go zone, after a possible meltdown, than an atmosphere completely choked with CO2. There hasn't been a single international crisis over a plant meltdown since Chernobyl, and that was more because of shoddy construction and safety standards in the former Soviet Union, than problems with the energy source itself.

Feel free to discuss. Just try to keep it civil.

Ya, sure.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/05/07/kennedy_doesnt_play_by_the_rules/

Nuclear power is very safe despite the public perception of it. Also, it may be expensive, but so are alternative forms of renewable energy. At this point in time, there's no reason to convert to other forms of energy--at least, not until we can find cheaper ways of harvesting renewable forms of it.