Reply #3: Ridiculous

[FBaggins]

Power generation must involve significant government input (up to an including ownership in some cases). It isn't purely a free market activity.

If you were building a new suburb and decided to let independent corporations decide how much water/sewer/power/etc was needed in each area things would be a mess. These things must be centrally planned out years/decades in advance. You can call the construction of a new highway "corporate welfare" if you want, but it's just the state recognizing that infrastructure is needed there.

Such centralized planning necessarily involves government action... whether that's by command, or by "incentive" doesn't matter. Because of this, ALL significant new power generation is to some extent subsidized (call it "corporate welfare" if you like). If we go with cap and trade, that's a clear subsidy for some types of power generation and just as clear a penalty on others.

In short - you are (once again) dead wrong. Lovins knew that more OR less nuclear power would involve a government decision. He thought that we would now decide to get rid of nuclear. That "we the people" were finished with nuclear power.

He was (as you are) wrong.