http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/
I haven't read the very long page. But the topline numbers are either wrong or something weird is going on. Wind and solar are already very close to the cost of legacy technologies--not 29 times more expensive. That number is just not credible. Solar is getting so cheap that the solar industry is saying they won't even need the tax credit to be extended at the end of next year--it's already cost competitive. And no one is saying we should go 100% solar and wind. Have a nuclear baseload (like we do now) and layer renewables, including the existing hydro and geothermal, on top of that.
And the total amount of land you would need for solar panels to generate enough kWh to meet the entire US demand is 100 square miles. And you'd probably put most of it on roofs and parking lots. Much smaller than Indiana. And using space already occupied. So that number is wrong or misleading. Maybe they are talking about wind turbines scattered over a large area. But you can still have buildings or crops or whatever in the huge open spaces between them.
So your saying solar power has gotten a lot cheaper, but you don't think nuclear power has gotten HUGELY more efficient and cheaper?
Yes. Nuclear's still about 4.5-5 nominal (underestimates the real delivered cost) cents/kWh to be generated. But then it also needs to be transmitted--a very long distance (while solar is easy to generate locally). People are putting up lots of new solar and wind installations, which is driving the cost down as it scales. But very little nuclear has been even proposed. There are new nuclear designs that people are floating around, but no one is building any of them. Here are some real numbers from the only nuclear plant under construction that I'm aware of. The Vogtle facility in GA has been adding 2 new reactors. They started the approval process for the project in 2006, construction began some years ago, and still have at least several more years before the facility is operational. The 2 new reactors are costing to date an estimated $14 billion (although I have heard that overruns to the tune of $1.5 billion have occurred already--not sure if that's included in the $14 billion number). The 2 reactors should be able to generate about 18,000 GWh annually when completed. And have ongoing fuel and operational expenses, generally about 2.5 cents per kWh. And safety externalities (both from risk of reactor failure and from the waste generated) that are not priced into those numbers. So for a 40 year operation, we're talking about $14+ billion upfront, $18 million/year in fuel and operations, for about 720 billion kWh over the lifespan. Or about 4.5 cents/kWh and unpriced externalities on top of that. This is about what an inflation adjusted nuke plant cost 30 years ago. And the cost per kWh is ignoring the time value of money and inflation. You have to put out a lot of that $14+ billion years before you generate a single kWh, and decades before you generate most of the kWh. I'm too lazy to do that calculation, but the 4.5 cents/kWh is a significant underestimate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Planthttp://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/Costs-Fuel,-Operation,-Waste-Disposal-Life-CycleThat electricity, once transmitted and delivered and taxed, would cost the consumer about 8-10 cents/kWh usually. But you can put solar panels on your roof right now and it would cost less than that in sunnier regions, and without any of those unpriced externalities.
For solar, the price installed has dropped from around $6.5/W just a few years ago, to under $2/W today (for larger installs), and is heading to below $1/W quickly.
I was looking at spending about $10k (without subsidies) including installation for a 5kW system on my own roof that would generate about 6500 kWh/year after inversion losses here (according to NREL's PVWatts). Assuming a 40 year operational period at full capacity (the panels degrade about 1% per year but should work for 50 years), that's about 4 cents/kWh delivered to my outlets. I'm also too lazy to include the time value of money here, but since we're looking at nuclear without that same adjustment, it's pretty close to apples-to-apples.
http://www.gogreensolar.com/collections/solar-panel-kitsNuclear is better in the sense that it provides consistent power 24/7. Solar is better in the sense that it provides power during the daytime when demand is the highest. Wind also provides power night and day, but tends to be stronger when the sun isn't shining as much/at all, so it's a nice complement to solar. A blend of all three, along with gas, and existing hydro/geothermal, is the likely next phase as I mentioned above.