So the rate hike is not exclusively for nuclear facilities, and Florida is one of the few states that get a significant 10% of its electricity from oil. Though there are expansions for coal and coal emission control, it is unknown at this time if the oil fired plants or coal would be reduced in respect to new nuclear plants coming online.

The Lovins chart is misleading. It doesn’t explain the basis for displacement. Name-plate capacity ratings for wind turbines are never met and hover around 25%. Nuclear has an average of 90% capacity rating. Power delivered from nuclear will be more reliable and less costly because of that great difference in capacity factor. If a 31% rate hike charges the amount this post claims, this is still far cheaper for the average consumer than installing a $15,000 solar array.

Wall St. does invest in nukes. All the major energy companies with nuclear holdings can be bought and sold on the street. It happens everyday.

Nuclear power in the USA has a better industrial safety than the wind power industry.

Interestingly enough, even after years of pouring rate-payer money into wind farms and failed solar projects, California is the largest importer of electricity in the nation – over 20% from outside the state, which by the way is mostly coal power.

The Southeastern United States enjoys the lowest electricity rates in the nation. Is it any coincidence that they also are heavily invested in nuclear?

Furthermore, I would question the data provided by Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh. Currently, nuclear power is by far the largest contributor to GHG offsets – currently at about 800 million tons of CO2 per year avoided by the 104 operating reactors in the United States. That’s 74% of the low-carbon energy in the entire nation. There is no large wind project that even comes close to the GHG benefit that a single nuclear reactor provides.