Photography with the Left Eye

Nukes have been increasingly touted as a big part of the solution to energy supply in a climate constrained world. Because the alternatives are too expensive.

I don’t think that’s quite right. Nuclear power is subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars, and has been since the first nuclear power was built. Here’s some information that I found compelling (attributed to Rep. Henry Waxman, but I can’t find the source….sorry)

Waxman has previously described nuclear as “already part of the mix” but said he does not support additional subsidies for nuclear power. “The problems with nuclear power is that for nuclear power to be successful requires subsidization by the government through legislation that we already have in place … therefore, may be more costly than the technologies that we will likely see for use of other alternatives to reduce the carbon emissions,” Waxman said at an American Solar Energy Society event in February 2007.

Other information from the same (lost) source:

Companies have submitted 19 applications to the Energy Department for $122 billion in loan guarantees, and say $18.5 billion would cover no more than three projects.

Did I say BIG money?