Economic reasons Another argument is the high cost of nuclear energy. According to this argument nuclear power has only been able to survive thanks to public subsidies. The World Council for Renewable Energy estimates that the nuclear industry has received about 1 trillion dollars (adjusted to present value) of public money in the world, while the set of renewable energy has not received more that 50,000 million dollars. Today, the generation of electricity through nuclear energy is more expensive than wind, comparable in price to the hydroelectric and cogeneration to wood gas, but cheaper than photovoltaic and the thermal fossil fuel plants (including combined cycle).But the costs of renewables are decreasing rapidly because of progress in increasing efficiency and reducing costs. The European study “Externe”, devoted to external costs associated with electricity production technologies all indirect components (called externalities), states that only wind energy has lower external costs than nuclear, and hydropower has costs lower or higher depending on the country. The remaining electricity production systems would always higher external costs. The cost of radioactive waste management in Spain (which is paid through the electricity tariff and the companies who require their services, whether electrical, hospitals, research laboratories, etc. ), as calculated by the National Radioactive Waste Company SA in its 6th General Radioactive Waste Plan, will be about 13,800 million.This calculation extends to the year 2070 and does not include costs or revenues for subsequent years (the radiotoxicity of the waste is maintained for tens of thousands of years). In Germany the State pays the costs of direct waste (spent fuel rods) citation needed , contaminated materials in power plants and the extraction of plutonium and uranium and other radioactive waste, such as generated in hospitals or universities, and storage costs of these wastes, because the industry lacks sufficient funds to do so citation needed . Construction costs of nuclear plants has traditionally been much higher than estimated.In the U.S., a survey of 75 of its reactors shows that construction costs were more than 322 of budget. In India, the country with recent experience in building nuclear reactors, their last 10 installations have exceeded their budgets by an average of 300 . Part of the increase in construction costs due to increased time required for it: the average required 66 months to mid-70s has past practice in an average of 82 months (almost 7 years) between 2000 and 2005. The cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations has shown being much higher than expected. For example, the decommissioning of Yankee Rowe (Massachusetts, USA) cost about 450 million, compared with 120 million originally envisaged. Although so far few plants have been dismantled in the coming years many will reach the end of their lives laid down and must be dismantled.According to the Secretariat of the International Renewable Energy Conference 2004, nuclear energy is the energy source that generates less employment per unit of energy produced. Less than any renewable energy. is excluded from the financial mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes penalties on companies issuing the greenhouse gases, since nuclear power indirectly generates. This decision was finalized in July 2001, at the Bonn Summit of the Framework Convention on Climate Protection. Nuclear power plants can not be insured only by private insurers. In 2005, the maximum amount of insurance for a nuclear plant in the U.S. was 300 million.