<Nuclear power is a relatively simple process>
In theory, yes. But that theory is contradicted by all experience. When theory and facts don't match, I go with the facts.
<cost per kWh, of Construction, Production and De-commissioning, it seems that NUCLEAR comes to about 4 US cents/kWh>
No, it doesn't. Not even close. The only way to arrive at such optimistic numbers, is to make very optimistic assumptions, and ignore the actual track record of the industry. I know how this is done: assume the nukes are running near-100% of the time, assume no accidents, assume de-commissioning costs a tiny fraction of what they actually are, assume no changes in environmental regulations, totally ignore the cost of LT disposal of nuclear waste (it's the government's problem), don't include the government subsidies (insurance, etc.) in your cost estimates.
<Solar, is...22 US cents/kWh>
You admitted your numbers were years out of date. Have you looked at current numbers? More importantly, have you looked at the long-term trends in costs for electricity generation? Have you paid attention to the changes in technology? If you do that, you'll find solar costs have been falling fast, wind and gas have been falling less fast, while nuclear costs have been rising.
Solar and wind need to be matched with a power source that has dispatchability. That means gas or hydro, not nuclear or coal. As the solar and wind build-out continues, this implies a gas buildout, and switching to gas in mature markets. More dispatchability, not more baseload, is what utilities need. |
