I will include citations to numbers when necessary. I do not have to cite everything I say; I have a brain, too. For cost per kWh it turns out I was using a number from 2003; the most recent data (2004) are lower--you won't like it, since it's from NEI, but notice that the numbers they use are from the Electric Utility Cost Group--which is most certainly neutral. As for the cost of spent fuel management, there are many different options. Detailed cost analyses have not been performed on each. Yucca Mountain could have cost less than the $24 billion paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund; however, anti-nuclear activists have filed lawsuit after lawsuit and blamed the cost on Yucca Mountain. Placing spent fuel in vitrified form in the uranium mine that it came from would certainly cost less, since you don't have to determine the suitability of the site. What security problems are there? I dealt with aircraft collisions before, and there's not much more a terrorist could do to a nuclear power plant than what happened at TMI, even with access to the control room. People promoting investment in uranium futures have a vested interest in making it look more expensive than it actually is (Remember when they were saying that the cost of uranium would skyrocket in 1985 so BUY BUY BUY?). Even at that, the number you give covers the cost of fuel pellet production, not the cost of raw materials, which is what they're talking about. Using the fuel efficiently would decrease this cost by a factor of 30 at least (97/3=32 1/3). Wind and nuclear cost about the same to construct. This does not include the cost of standby capacity (i.e., nuclear runs 90% of the time and wind 15%-30%, so you need three to six times more wind capacity to produce the same amount--assuming a normal distribution of outages, which doesn't actually happen, etc., etc.). As for the cost of the IFR, I quote: "For a new power source to be viable, the cost of power must be competitive with today's power systems. The proof of costs in any project only comes when full- sized systems are built and operated. Although no full-sized IFR plant has been built, several facts suggest that the IFR will be very economic. Costs of today's nuclear plants are just slightly above that of coal as a national average. Several nuclear plants have operated with costs significantly below that of coal however. A new IFR should cost less than either a new nuclear (typical of today's technology) or coal plant based on the following. The IFR does not require some of the complex systems that today's reactors require. Examples include the low level radwaste cleanup station, the emergency core cooling system, and fewer control rod drives and control rods for comparable power. Because of the low pressure in the sodium systems, less steel is required for the plant piping and reactor vessel. There are studies that suggest that the reactor containment will be less massive. Other cost savings will be made because the IFR does not require the services of the Isotopic Separation Plants for fuel enrichment. Additional costs to the IFR include the integral fuel reprocessing capability, and a secondary sodium system (but the IFR fuel process costs are somewhat offset by the extremely low cost for raw fuel and the improved waste product). Some studies have been done which indicate that an IFR would be very economical and competitive to build, own, and operate, but the final proof of economics can only come in the construction and operation of a commercial sized plant." In all likelihood, it wouldn't be any more expensive than the first round of light-water plants, the second round of IFRs wouldn't be any more expensive than the second round of light-water plants, etc. Technology does develop and has in the past. At least in the first few new plants, the lawsuits will come from the national level or heavily-funded and -assisted astroturf local groups. Communities that have nuclear power plants already generally like them and want another. Bellafonte and Calvert Cliffs have been in the news recently in this regard. Inflation isn't as much a factor as you think. The last two nuclear power plants in the US--Seabrook and Watts Bar--were ordered in 1973 but only came online in 1991 and 1996, respectively. Inflation was a huge factor in that 20-year period, but since the costs are accounted for in 1991 and 1996 dollars, the lack of significant inflation from 1991 to the present means that the costs won't go up significantly. PBMRs are supposed to be the great Third World hope. It would indeed be difficult to reprocess fuel from a PBMR; however, PBMRs are only in their initial stages of development and PBMR-based breeders may eventually be developed. The European Commission study shows what costs should be added to correct for social impacts, not actual monetary costs of production. It concludes that only wind is more socially responsible than nuclear--and I conclude that's because it doesn't produce enough energy to have much of an impact. Pro-nuclear people do not as a whole like Yucca Mountain. It's interesting that you are discovering this. Here's a link to my discussion of the New York Times article on reprocessing. Anonymous: the byproduct of an IFR cycle is 1700 pounds of fission products per 1000 megawatt reactor per year. Plutonium is a fuel, not a byproduct; if it indeed is extremely poisonous (and it isn't--it's up there with caffeine), let's use it in reactors and get rid of it.