Yeah, but nuclear is not as safe. Dealing with waste is also a problem. I care about that more a slight difference in cost.

Less then half isn't slight.

Also perhaps it's just the way it's translated... babelfish wouldn't translate it for me... but the bolded seems to mean the savings are counting the imposed taxes meant to make oil more expensive, to make oil more expensive.

Which would be like a Wal-mart saying Sony tvs are cheaper then Visios because they raised the price of visio's 500% and are making a way higher profit margin off of them.

I mean, lets think about common sense here.  If it really did save money... they wouldn't need ANY subsidies.

There's no price for human life.

Even without those it's a positive balance.

Nuclear is arguably the safest form of energy we have right now. Fewer people have died from nuclear energy than wind power (by a rate of about 2 to 1) when adjusting for power output. Meaning that, although nuclear has killed a few people due to Chernobyl, the amount of energy produced by plants around the world equate to about 0.004 deaths per terawatt hour. Comparatively, wind power yields about 0.011 deaths per terawatt hour (for reference, coal is about 200 deaths per TWH worldwide, and about 17 per TWH in western countries like the US). This accounts for all environmental factors as well, BTW.

Furthermore, the cost of power generation and safety goes far outside of just these factors. If energy is expensive, it means that people must face a reduction in their standard of living in all other areas, as they are having to pay more for the same energy. If energy costs more, can they afford food to live on? Rent/mortgage to live in a house? Money for health care? Education? Money can significantly adjust the life of human beings, and that is why I want to see the cheapest forms of energy available for people - regardless if it is wind, solar, nuclear or MSR thorium breeders. If people do not have to pay additional costs because their government is forcing subsidized electricity onto them, money can be spent elsewhere improving life. So your argument about safety is wrong from more than one factor - not only is nuclear safer in terms of health (less deaths due to the insane standards of nuclear), but in living standards (cheaper energy = less money spent on survival = more money spent on improving standard of living, health, longevity and R&D into future life-enhancing items).

Use common sense.

If it was a positive balance it wouldn't need subsidies... because the electircity would be cheaper...

and less people die in Nuclear related accidents and uranium mining then mining accidents related to Solar and Turbine power and don't forget the toxic waste.

So you've argued yourself in a corner here... and are basically forced to admit that Nuclear Energy would be the best way to go... being the safest form. 

Wouldn't it be still be cheaper than fuel in the long run? Not initially of course.

About nuclear: one screw up in history is enough to fuck up really badly and that's enough for me. Japan was close.

Anyway, I don't think we'll agree here, and I have to go dinner. Let's leave the conversation here?

I have to disagree.  You seem to be just trying to gracefully back out of an issue you backed yourself in.  Afterall "There is no price for human life."

including cherynobal far less people die per year.  Do you know how many people are expected to die due to chernobyl?

4,050 or so.

Do you know how many people died due to chernobyl so far?

50.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

How many people do you think die each year falling off roofs installing solar panels?  Or mining the ore that is needed to make solar panels.

Don't currently have the time to read all this, so I'm just going to throw this video in here. Watch it if you want, I highly recommend it.

@mrstickball:

And I agree that corporations shouldn't lobby. There shouldn't be a government that can legislate changes to benefit one company and hurt another.

It's not just laws that benefit one company over another, but laws that benefit companies over consumers as well. Where do you think all of the anti-litigious propaganda comes from? Big corporations, who spread misinformation in order to cheat consumers out of their rights. They actually fool consumers into lobbying their own rights away.

Define 'whatever it wants'. My belief is that government should exist to ensure that no person is forcing someone to do something against their will. That would mean that a company could never force someone into doing, living, or saying something against their will. Again, you can look at countries that have had systemic, heavy regulatory structures over many years and find that they are not the most beneficial for business. I have never said no regulations are needed - but we need to maintain the minimum standard to ensure that businesses can compete against eachother, and contracts can be enforced.

If the company ends up being the only one on the market (as is the dream of most capitalist business owners), they'll essentially be able to do whatever they want within an unregulated market (not to mention tha the lack of competition will lead to poor quality products at higher prices). The only way to maintain competition is to have a regulated market, else at one point you'll have companies eliminating their competition based on their resources (buying them out, having huge advertising campaigns that eclipse the competition), not on the quality of their products/services.

It is an illusion of the socialist system as well. There will never be a level playing field. I believe, though, that the most level playing field comes from free markets - and the data will prove that. It is why a generally free state such as my own can have half the number of people in it as yours, with a similar geography, and produce far more goods, services, technology and products than yours and other socialist comparables. Likewise, it also shows why even more free nations with far less resources have done even better, such as New Zealand, Hong Kong and Singapore.

You are aware that there's no socialism in Romania, no? Socialism, and the whole left wing for that manner, has pretty much disappeared from Romania since the fall of the Communist regime (doesn't surprise me., as Romanian's have been typically supporters of right wing conservative ideals, and were more sympathetic to the Nazis rather than the Communists).  Everything's been privatized. I'm not sure there are any significant regulations to the market. Laws meant to protect the consumer are useless. Health care isn't free etc.

Of the countries you mentione, I'm quite sure New Zealand is much more socialist than Romania is. Plus, deregulation didn't reallz helo Iceland, no?

Also, I had no ideea that the US has half the population of Romania.