I notice you haven't included decommissioning costs or clearing up the mess when things go wrong. Who pays for that?
Who pays for the massive destruction and poisoning of the environment that comes with fossil fuels? Who pays for the thousands of dead people every year due to coal use?
Here in Germany decomissioning is payed for by the operators. Here in Germany they also have to pay for the mess, if things would go bad. They are forced by law to but billions into a common fund that is used as immediate money for that purpose, and beyond that, they have to pay with all they have.
It's interesting that you feel the need to support your arguments with childish, playground incivility and immediately resort to a conspiracy theory. What might that say about the underlying strength of your arguments?
It says about them that i had the right gut feeling, after all you immediately used a site called "no2nuclearpower" as a source, thus confirming where you get your arguments from.
See, you people always make many mistakes. One of them, for example, is comparing the subsidies that nuclear got during it's _whole_ existence to subsidies for, lets say, renewables. That's what they do here in Germany. They include money that goes into research of nuclear in general (yes, that includes medicine as well). They include every cent since day one. But still they fail to come up with numbers that would get close to what renewables get. Not by a long shot. Now consider that renewables did get that for much, much less time.
If anything, that would have to be compared to either a year-by-year basis for both, or compared to the kW/h produced during the selected timeframes. But they vehemently avoid doing that. You know why? Because it would make their unfounded assertions and over-inflated fantasy numbers even more ridiculous than they already look. As an random example with no relation to reality: Sure, 10 billions for nukes look more than 1 billion for renewables. But if the 10 billion were for 20 years, and the 1 billion for only one year, it would actually be 0.5 billion for nukes vs. 1 billion for renewables. And if then the nukes produce, lets say, 100 TW/h during one year, and the renewables only 10 TW/h, all of a sudden it would be only 0.05 billion for nukes vs. 1 billion for renewables.
As i have mentioned, in 2011 we are throwing 17 billion Euro at PV, a technology that makes absolutely no sense in Germany. And the operators of these PV systems get between 57,4 down to 21,1 cents per kW/h, depending on the size of the installation and what year it went online. And that for 20 years fixed since the time it went online. With absolutely no connection to real world prices. Oh, and they put none of that money into extending the grid or building storage. They are truly parasites. And who are they? They are the people who can afford to install such systems on their own roofs or on their own land. That is, all the small people have to pay insane amounts of money into the hands of a few who already have enough money to afford such installations.
See, if nuclear would be so expensive, and if they got so much subsidies, how comes that countries like France can provide electricity for almost half of the price we have, while they have comparable tax rates in general? Since they mostly use nuclear, they would have to have skyrocketing high taxes to subsidize that. But they don't. And still provide electricity for almost half the price. Care to explain how that fits together with that "nukes can only live because of the massive subsidies" stanza?
Right, it doesn't. But fact checking was never the strength of the irrational anti-nuke fraction. Really, before you talk about the strength of the arguments of others, you really should educate yourself a bit better about the topic. Using a calculator really isn't that hard, and the numbers are available. Try it one time, you will be surprised about the lies you have been told from the anti-nuke crowd. It's really eye-opening. That's what i did, and that's what changed my mind about this topic completely. I did no longer use the numbers the anti-nuke crowd was spewing, but neither used the numbers the pro-nuke folks were spewing. I simply went to the source (like the "Statistisches Bundesamt" and the "Bundesnetzagentur", among others, here in Germany) and did the calculations myself.
Really, give it a try. Do something yourself, and stop repeating what you have been told. Both sides are lying, but it's the anti-nuke folks who lie the most and completely misrepresent and twist the facts. Playing down a few billion of subsidies, like the pro-nuke folks do, is peanuts compared to what the anti-nuke folks do. Again, i highly recommend you to do the calculations on your own.
ETA: To give you an example of the dishonesty of the renewables-proponents. In the past months you could read and hear lots and lots about how the installed capacity of PV in Germany is already more than the capacity of all our nukes. Telling the people that we could just shut them all down immediately. But saying that is just not grossly misleading, it's a flat out huge lie. PV just does not produce that much at all, despite the nameplate capacity being higher. Simply because the sun does not shine long enough for that, because that would mean it has to shine 24 hours a day, no clouds ever, etc. Reality is that PV contributes only around 2% while nuclear contributes 22%. Thats 11 times more, even though the raw capacity numbers are higher for PV. But what did the folks do? They cheered and went all-so-happy about that, declaring victory and getting all smug. Reality? No, they never checked that one.
ETA2: Forgot to mention that even that 2% vs. 22% number does not reflect reality completely. Since grid operators are forced by law to feed in renewable first, disconnecting conventional plants in the process, the real numbers would be even more shifted slightly towards nuclear/coal/gas.
I notice you haven't included decommissioning costs or clearing up the mess when things go wrong. Who pays for that?