Reply #7: The OP poster is famous for treating harebrained blogs like they are gospel... [View All]

This is yet another case of the nuclear proponents reaching for idiocy because they have nothing factual to support their position.

The premise seems to be that only projects that have very high rates of return are the ones that get financed and projects that have a lower rate of return are not.

Think about the stupidity behind that premise for just a moment. It presupposes that risk isn't a factor in decision-making by investors. When all those rating agencies slam nuclear power they aren't doing it because the risk/reward evaluation is bad, but because the they want high risk returns on low risk projects. Forget the fact that trillions of dollars of other investments are setting the standard for risk/reward evaluations, poor little ol' bitty nuclear power is being singled out to be picked on.

What is absolutely true is that there ARE two sets of numbers involved - those produced by the people who want to sell nuclear power plants, and those produced by independent analysts, financial firms and credit rating agencies.

It is like saying who do you trust, the car salesman or Consumer Reports?

I'll take Consumer Reports every time.