RE: Scientists: Nuclear power isn't viable without corporate welfare
rod,
Do you realize how much 6000MW is? You make it sound like it's a drop in the bucket, but when compared to a 2.5 MW windmill, you're talking about virtually the lifetime of that windmill. Those really are equivalent and a wash.
One of the main issues for both wind and solar is that the subsidies they have received have come and gone and change in nature and degree. This is not true with fossil fuels and nuclear power. The oil depletion tax is another example of sacred cows that are as dependable as the sun rising in the east. What that does is create a stable investment environment, which makes it so much easier for investors to lay their money into the project and get a guaranteed return on their money. With the one-three year window patchwork of subsidies, renewables have really struggled until of late to try to get a both a stable development and production infrastructure that will stick around. In fact, most of the wind power industry left the US after Reagan pulled the rug out from under it and went to Denmark, which provided the stable base of support that it needed. One of their national heroes is an American expatriot who left for this reason!
And as far as my free energy, I got it when I used those incentives from the 70s to put extra insulation in my attic. Energy conservation is still the best way to "produce" energy per dollar investment.
