"Your point would hold much more merit if I'd simply relied upon a similar cherry-picked set of sources from interested parties - say NEI"? Such as, for example, the "broader picture of historical energy subsidies," the sponsorship of which by the Nuclear Energy Institute you conspicuously omit from your text. The NEI is an advocacy organization whose objective is, according to its website (www.nei.org), to "promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy." Whatever its merits, the NEI is hardly a neutral or unbiased source.
The study itself was performed by Management Information Services, an independent consulting firm. Indeed, the particular, detailed sutdy referenced above was commissioned by NEI, however unless MIS's forecasting services also include predictions of their future clients, their conclusions are cosistent with a prior (more abbreviated) study they published in 2006:
No doubt NEI commissioned and trumpted the study because it is favorable to their interests. Nonetheless, MIS has published similar numbers well before NEI commissioned MIS to perform a broader study.
Re: Conca's article - I was aware of his rather embarassing reference to The Onion - and regardless of whether or not he intended to play it off as a joke, it comes across as a serious blight on what is otherwise a very good unpacking of what goes into levelized energy cost projections. Again, most of the reason I cited the article is for this explanation - one which in fact does not privilege nuclear over gas.
Re: the issue of no unbiased/disinterested parties to the debate - even taking this as a given (I'm not sure I immediately buy this conclusion on face), it seems like anyone who is seeking to make a genuine assessment of the facts would take care to draw upon sources which take into account these known biases and attempt to produce a reasonable set of "uncertainty bounds" as a result. Drawing exlcusively from sources favorable to one's own interests implies cherry-picking to make a point. Which I believe we agree is not conducive to a productive discussion.
With regards to the original author, this was my point, really - simply that de Rugy draws very heavily upon sources on one side of the debate with a well-known agenda. I'm not trying to dismiss these sources out-of-hand necessarily (in fact, for the most part, I tried to address the arguments on their own merits), but I do think her choice of source speak greatly to her own biases when constructing her argument.