Comment about nuclear on RealClimate:

[joshcryer]

Some simple math. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to figure this out.

Total US Fed Subsidies for Nuclear 2002-2007 $6.2 billion
Increase in Net Electricity Generation from Nuclear 2002-2007 804.6-780.1=24.5 billion kWhr

Cost to US taxpayers per add’l kWhr Nuclear = $0.253/kWhr

Total US Fed Subsidies for non-Hydro Renewables 2002-2007 $1.4+2.8 billion = $4.2 billion
Increase in Net Electricity Generation from non-Hydro Renewables 2002-2007 105.2-79.1=26.1 billion kWhr

Cost to US taxpayers per add’l kWhr Renewables = $0.161/kWhr

Note: US Nuclear power generation declined in both 2008 and 2009. Renewable electricity production increased by 17.5% in 2008 alone and by another 9.2% in the first 9 months of 2009. Also note, this is not capacity, but actual electricity generated.

I’d have to do some more digging to find specific figures, but among non-hydro renewables, wind is by far the least expensive and is contributing by far the greatest increase in electricity production.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_5.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08102.pdf

Comment 413 here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/comment-page-9/#comments

His numbers are on page 22 of the GAO report.

edit: for bold

[madokie]

1. Wind, hydro, solar and geo-thermal

is how we're going to be making most of our electrical power in the near future. IMO

[wtmusic]

2. Let's throw in the $7B taxpayers paid to wind producers between 2002-2007

in the form of the $.015/kWh PTC (Production Tax Credit) and redo the math

http://www.awea.org/faq/wwt_costs.html

$11.2B / 26.1B kWh = $.42/kWh (wind) vs $.25/kWh (nuclear)

Nuclear is a bargain.

[Hissyspit]

4. Have you factored in cost of transportation and storage of nuclear waste?

[wtmusic]

8. Irrelevant

OP was talking about cost to all taxpayers, not strictly customers.

[joshcryer]

5. You can't do that because this is the cost to increase energy for the past 5 years.

Not the cost to produce new electricity, IEA places nuclear at 80% of all R&D ever.

[wtmusic]

9. Call it what you like - it's a subsidy paid for by all taxpayers

Your link only factors in DOE subsidies.

[kristopher]

13. You really can't do any kind of analysis properly, can you?

Minor point: The nuclear industry is ALSO entitled to a PTC since enactment of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, however, "this tax credit has not been used because no nuclear power plant has been built recently". - (Page 4 GAO-08-102 Federal Electricity Subsidies)

Major point: The initial figure includes the production tax credit for wind:
"We estimate that tax expenditures to support electricity production from renewable sources totaled $2.8 billion from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2007. Revenue loss estimates associated with these tax expenditures grew by 232 percent during the 6-year period we reviewed, increasing from $238 million in fiscal year 2002 to $790 million in fiscal year 2007. These revenue loss estimates stemmed from three tax expenditures—Clean Renewable Energy Bond tax credits, exclusion of interest on energy facility bonds, and the new technology tax credit for renewable electricity production and renewable energy investment. The new technology credit, which reduces the cost of electricity generation from wind, geothermal, and solar energy, is the largest tax expenditure directed at renewable electricity production. Revenue loss estimates for this tax credit totaled $690 million in fiscal year 2007." - (Page 4 GAO-08-102 Federal Electricity Subsidies)

Discussion:
You didn't consult the source material offered by the OP, which is extremely clear on the point of your post.
You instead sought out a vague discussion of wind subsidies and performed a self serving grade school level "analysis" that was off by a factor of about 5X.

Conclusion: You are willing to say or do anything to support your goal of advancing the interests of the nuclear power industry. Since it has been shown that were your efforts to succeed it would result in:
1) reduce the pace of eliminating fossil fuels
2) dramatically increase the risk of nuclear proliferation
3) dramatically increase the amount of nuclear wastes
4) retain the present system of centralized generation and distribution of power which is largely responsible for driving the growth in energy consumption;
it is very reasonable to surmise that no matter your words to the contrary, you have no interest in pursuing energy and environmental goals for the good of all.


Edited to remove flame bait.

[Gregorian]

3. And I just talked with someone who is helping to construct mini underground nuclear this week.

Right now they're building new small underground nuclear plants. I think it was California. It's the first I had heard of it. I can't even find a link.

If anyone knows about this I'd like to hear more.

[NNadir]

6. You are completely ignoring the importatnt point of VALUE.

I really despise this dumb argument. All the subsidies in the world have not made so called "renewables" worthwhile.

The Germans throw money at it and then go out and buy more dangerous natural gas.

If I can buy a cheap plastic piece of shit from Amory Lovin's owners at Walmart, and it doesn't work, it is NOT the same as buying something a bit more expensive that DOES work.

The nuclear enterprise provides about 8% of US primary energy.

The horseshit consumer junk, poop fuels, ethanol, the toxic nightmare of solar cells, the vast leaking flaming piles of greasy junk in the sky, the drill holes through cap rock to chase after the last bit of heat, do NOT, combined.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

An investment in nuclear power will last for generations. An investment is so called "renewables" is nothing more than exercise in consumerism landfill generating, a distributed energy nightmare compared to that other hell hole of distributed energy, the automobile. The so called "renewables" strategy is nothing more than a proposal to leave future generations landfills filled with toxic stuff. It's unethical; it's wasteful; and it's, um, faith based.

[madokie]

7. and we still have no place to dispose of the radioactive waste from a nuke plant

Even after all the money we have thrown at that endeavor there is still no answers. My suspicion is that there is no viably safe way to do that. Links big guy, I want to read some of your peer reviewed papers if you don't mind. I want to read more about your earlier boast of inventing a safer nuke reactor while you're at it too.

Our energy landscape is changing and if you'll take the time to notice it is not nuclear powered either. Vermont Yankee will be another of the hot spots we'll as people have to deal with for what will seem like an eternity. And I'm not talking faith based here either.

[jpak]

10. LOL!!!!

:rofl:

[malakai2]

11. I couldn't help but notice...

The increase in nuclear output has been through increases in capacity factor to the vicinity of 90 percent or so. Supplying a steady ~20 percent of nationwide baseload for the past, what, 20 years? What's the collective and breakout capacity factor for the renewables? Will the cost per kWhr of renewables stay the same or increase as buildout progresses to the point where they could supply ~20 percent of US electricity demand? How much would it cost per kWhr to field sufficient renewable generators to supply the same actual generation as the existing nuclear plants?

[kristopher]

12. Since squeezing capacity out of existing reactors is less expensive than building new ones...

what do you think the outcome will be?

What makes you think the capacity factor of an individual generating plant and "baseload" are even relevant to the discussion?