The subsidy costs for nuclear to build 20 percent of our electricity from carbon-free would be about $17.5 billion over 10 years.
So my question will be why not have a clean energy standard or a base-load standard that includes nuclear?
I believe that anyone who is very fervently for nuclear power should be for this type of global warming legislation.
But it excludes nuclear power.
The biggest subsidies by far go to wind, which is 19 times per kilowatt hour times the subsidy for nuclear.
the relative cost of building a comparable amount of nuclear and wind would be about the same.
I believe we can electrify half our cars and trucks--I learned that from one of the witnesses here today--during the next 20 years.
Why don't we have a clean energy standard? Why do we leave out, for example, nuclear power, which produces 70 percent of our carbon-free ele...
Maybe what we need is a base-load clean energy standard and a renewable clean energy standard.
There would be more under building 100 nuclear power plants, a lot more, than there would be under building even 180,000 wind turbines.
By my computations, if all that were fully implemented, we would reach the Kyoto goals by 2030 without a cap-and-trade, and do it in a low c...
Well, we wouldn't want to destroy the environment in the name of saving the environment.
So why don't we have a clean energy standard or why don't we have a base-load clean energy standard and a renewable energy standard?
I am asking you about a mandate. We have a mandate for wind and solar, really, mainly wind is the practical effect.
He said what we believe, that it is safe, that we have ways to deal with the waste, and he wants to get it going.
I certainly agree with the idea that investors are responsible for their own analysis.
So it is really more--the companies, of course, have no skin in the game.
I really think it has been most enlightening.
