It's expensive<quoted text>
Yes, you are correct. We have 65 plants, according to Wiki. What I meant to suggest was that we need more. There is a public fear of these plants that curtails our desire to build them. Yet they are far more efficient and cost effective than traditional plants. If you think a nuclear plant has a high cost just compare it to a traditional plant cranking out the same energy. It is off the charts.
I don't understand the rest of your post. WTF are you talking about?
" Higher capital costs due to safety, emergency, containment, radioactive waste, and storage systems
Problem of long-term storage of radioactive waste
Heated waste water from nuclear plants harms aquatic life
Potential nuclear proliferation issue "...
In March 2011, the approx. US $ cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel (at current spot uranium price):
At 45,000 MWd/t burn-up this gives 360,000 kWh electrical per kg, hence fuel cost: 0.77 c/kWh.
"Most efficiency improvements have been priced at 1¢ to 3¢ per kilowatt-hour, while new nuclear energy is on track to cost 15¢ to 20¢ per kilowatt-hour. And no nuclear plant has ever been completed on budget."
Romm, J. The Staggering Cost of New Nuclear Power.Part One in a Series on a New Nuclear Cost Study.CfAP. Web. 2009
Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmm...WTFrig didn't you comprehend?