This article http://www.counterpunch.com/wasserman11062008.html claims nuclear power is not economically competitive, that the cost of construction is in the billions and that only through heavy gov't assisted subsidies can one be built. The private sector, businesses, understand that without gov't subsidy (i.e corporate welfare) nuclear power would not be cost-competitive. "But Wall Street has given thumbs down to a technology that can't compete with Solartopian sources like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and other green energies." "A strong lobby with a slick, expensive pubic relations campaign is now pushing new nukes here" "The future of new reactor construction thus depends on massive federal and state subsidies. In the fall of 2007, the industry inserted into a Congressional energy bill a package of loan guarantees meant to provide $50 billion in taxpayer-backed funds to build new reactors." "Reactor projects fail about 50% of the time, and such a package could have stuck taxpayers with a massive liability." "But in today’s financial and political climate, atomic energy cannot compete. A green-powered planet is the only one that will sell on both Main Street and Wall Street." I am aware that the cost per wattage of electricity generated nuclear is comparable to coal in cost (and natural gas and oil) but do these figures figure in gov't subsidy? Do nuclear power companies "repay" the initial gov't outlays?