Nuclear is such a fun topic to dissect. Did you know that NO nuclear reactor EVER made a profit without subsidies? It might only directly get a subsidy of $1.59/mwh, but that doesn’t include the tax money spent to design and build the facility. Nor does it include the tax money spent to mine, process and ship the fuel to the facility. It does not include the tax money spent to ship the fuel to a storage facility where tax dollars will be spent for the next 100,000 years to keep it safe. It does not include the tax money spent to dismantle the nuclear facility at the end of its useful life either. Nor does it take into account the governments taking over the insurance risk of a disaster. If the company had to buy insurance for risk of a leak or meltdown it couldn’t even start up- how much do you think $10 trillion worth of insurance would cost them each year? Good old taxpayers subsidize the bill if it happens. No, it hasn’t happened yet, but neither have I had an accident yet I still have to pay for insurance each month.
The only reason we have such a large military complex is to protect our interests abroad, mainly oil interests. At nearly a trillion $$ per year spent on military, I’d say that’s a large subsidy.
I think its time to end ALL subsidies for all businesses in the country. Why should we pay for wind power if its so good? Why should we pay for coal since its been around for centuries? Why should we pay for roads we will never use? Why should we allow people to deduct their mortgage interest from their taxes- renters or people who own their homes just have to make up the difference. Why should people be allowed to reduce their taxes because they have children? You and me just end up paying more in taxes to educate that child and pay so many other expenses related to child rearing- let the parents pay for it!

I agree. when we tax one form of energy & use that tax money to subsidize another form of energy it just confuses the issue of which ones practical & which ones are just a political pork barrel project.
it would also help if the media was educated to use a single unit of energy such as joules when comparing various methods of production instead of their using btu,kw hours & horse power interchangeably.
actually it would be a BIG help if the media was educated at all.

Absolutely correct,and it’s about time people woke up to the truth.

Yes and Yes,

Alot of renewables will make the air worse. If you count the energy to make ethonal, you could get ~ 1.5X Nox, hydro carbons.

If you’re priority is money, yes. If you’re priority is breathing clean air, no.

Clearly the answer is YES!

Renewable energy is the new code word for corporate welfare.

only skeptics believe in reality, warmers and other faithful live in a world of magic and fantasy.