Also, nuclear decommissioning costs and taxpayer assumed insurance for catastrophic events have NOT been factored into the cost of nuclear. - Yosh Schmenge

Yosh, at present US utilities collect 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. This funding is probably excessive since US reactors are now going through processes that extend their lives to 60 years, and research is underway aimed at extending their lives to 80 years. In the near term at least, it is probably cheaper to recondition old reactors to extend their lives than to replace them with new reactors. As for insurance, new reactor designs are extremely safe. The GE ESBWR will suffer a core meltdown once in every 29 million years of operation. If that once in every 29 million years accident takes place, safety back ups that are far superior to those in the Three Mile Island Reactor are in place. If you will recall, the Three Mile Island Reactor accident did not cause any deaths or injuries, and was not linked to any illnesses. In a rational world reactors should be insurable for catastrophic losses, and the premiums should not be expensive. If Insurance companies do not wish to offer risk coverage at a cost that is based on rational risk assessment, then it is in the interest of the government that insurance coverage be offered. Who ever offers insurance should have the right to charge a reasonable premium based on risk. The insurance premium would not be large in any case.

The GE ESBWR will suffer a core meltdown once in every 29 million years of operation.

And computer hard drives have been consistently rated in millions of hours btw failures. However, I find that mine die after a couple of years of intermittent use.

When I hear such long term claims as that, I'm skeptical.

Reactors have numerous built in safety features. Reactor safety engineering is very sophisticated. Researchers have spent decades figuring out how reactors can break, and ways to prevent them breaking. This includes fool procedures, lit the automatic reactor shutdown in florida last week. At the same time researchers have figured it better ways to contain leaks in case an accident does happen. Before you describe yourself a skeptic, you should inform yourself about nuclear safety. If you proclaim yourself skeptical without having information, then you reveal yourself to be an ignoramus.

You'll be comforted in the fact that the hard drive manufacturers say the same thing.

They can say whatever they want, they dont go through the same safety regimen that nuclear engineering does. Thats bourne out in the safety record of nuclear power plants, which even including Chernobyl has the lowest death or injury count per GW/hr.

This 'well, my hard drive failed and they promised me reliability too' argument is specious nonsense.