Argument: Nuclear energy relies too heavily on subsidies/taxpayers
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
"The case against nuclear power". Greenpeace. January 8, 2008: "Despite its proponents claiming that it is cost-effective, nuclear power actually depends heavily on state subsidies and massive loans, and is actually a hidden heavy burden to citizens."
"The Case Against Nuclear Power". Public Citizen. Retrieved 1.24.08: "Despite its promise more than 50 years ago of energy “too cheap to meter,” the nuclear power industry continues to be dependent on taxpayer handouts to survive. Since its inception in 1948, this industry has received tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies but remains unable to compete economically on its own. On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that included over $13 billion in tax breaks and subsidies, as well as other incentives, for the nuclear industry. Here’s a rundown of some of the giveaways to the mature, wealthy industry included in the bill:"
Mark Hertsgaard. "The True Costs of Nuclear Power". Mother Earth News. April/May 2006: "As Amory Lovins, the energy guru who directs the Rocky Mountain Institute a think tank that advises corporations and governments on energy use points out, Nowhere [in the world] do market-driven utilities buy, or private investors finance, new nuclear plants. Only continued massive government intervention is keeping the nuclear option alive."