What's 2% of 6%? 0.12%. What a large-scale success. The keyword in your first post is still "projects." You can't find any actual, real, operating costs--just projections. As for the second post, I'll try to say this slowly. The spent fuel surcharge is a fee paid to the government. The utility pays for fuel storage on top of this fee. The two have nothing to do with each other. The utility and the government had a contract--the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982--that the government would use this money to take ownership and possession of the waste by 1998. Take a deep breath. The utility is paying for current onsite storage and is paying into a fund for future permanent storage. Thus, when the government takes the utility's money and runs off into the hills, it is in breach of contract and financially liable. This is not a subsidy or bailout. This is the government misusing the industry's money and missing a deadline, with financial consequences to the industry. The money in the fund is being used to develop Yucca Mountain--which is the wrong answer, as I've said about six times. I don't know why you keep referring to it. How is Yucca Mountain already full? It hasn't been used yet. Nobody knows what the final volume of waste will be. No "snuggling" is involved in my proposal. Sites which were originally designed for four reactors and currently have two or were designed for two and currently have one have gaping holes where reactors should be. The new reactors would simply be placed where they should have gone 20 or 30 years ago. And these are not new, untried concepts: the CANDU has been running commercially across Canada at multiple locations for decades, and the IFR, although experimental, ran for years on nuclear waste. They are waste-eating reactors, meaning that they reduce the volume of waste. So yes, they do lower the amount of total waste. What waste they do produce would have been there anyway but in greater amounts. --Stewart Peterson