Slightly lower that the cost of coal or nuclear from a paid off plant. If we don’t count the externalizes of coal or the taxpayer provided liability coverage given to nuclear.

Add in the external costs of coal and solar is already cheaper.

Solar is already cheaper than new coal or nuclear. The EIA projects the total LCOE of new coal to be 10 to 11 cents per kWh. New nuclear at 11 cents.

Were we installing PV solar in the US at German prices ($2/watt) then solar would be going on to the grid at under 10 cents per kWh.

No subsidies included in the solar price. Subsidies for coal and nuclear are included.

We’ve engaged in a multi-decade campaign to shift demand to the night time to even out demand throughout the day. As renewable production increases we will continue to shift a significant portion of the demand to when electricity is being produced.

Across a wide variety of industries, including solar, the learning curve roughly drops prices in half every time you increase production by a factor of 10. With PV currently accounting for something like 0.1% to 0.2% of electricity production, it can easily grow by a factor of 100, dropping PV electricity costs to about a quarter of what they are now, and slightly lower than coal or nuclear.

An alternative way of looking at this is to think about PV in the context of Building Integrated Photovoltaics. A roof covering that happens to produce electricity will cost about as much to manufacture and install as shingles do today. You will eventually be able to get a significant chunk of your electricity for free as a side effect of building your house.

The power of a system depends on how large a system you build. Build a big wind farm and a small reactor and the wind farm will create more power than the reactor. That’s just simple arithmetic.

‘Build nuclear so you don’t have to build coal’ is tired, old, totally failed false choice. It’s like asking if you’d rather have your right eye poked out or your left eye poked out. The obvious answer is “Leave my damned eyes alone!!!”.

How about we go for choice number three and pick cheaper, quicker to install and safer renewables? That works pretty well for me. Make sense to you?

(“Even the plants at Fukoshima were not up to the safety standards of US nuclear plants.” You’re trying to make a joke, yes? Do you know who built the Fuku plants?)

Sorry, nuclear – like coal – is now walking down that green mile. They’re finished, priced off the table, trundling off the world’s stage….

Where several of you seem to be saying that nuclear power is “unsafe” and a threat to humanity…if you look at figures of fatalities per unit electricity of various energy sources, you’ll find that nuclear power has only been responsible for roughly 0.04 deaths per TWh, where coal power and its relevance are responsible for roughly 161. People hear the word “nuclear” in the news, and they assume Chernobyl will be a repeat incident. Chernobyl was the result of an operator mistake, which should have realistically never have been made possible to happen. Even the plants at Fukoshima were not up to the safety standards of US nuclear plants.

Yes, nuclear power is expensive, and licensing is difficult, but nuclear power plants will more efficiently produce power with a lessened environmental effect, and in a realistically safer manner.

2. The amount of land needed for solar and wind is far from massive.  Again, you’ve got some misinformation in your database.

3. Can’t make sense of your point.  

4. You do not realize the amount of radioactive waste we already have.  There’s no way we should multiply that amount with no decent disposal solution.

5. Not my point.  But reactors will be terrorist targets.

6. We have no data on the number of people killed during nuclear plants construction.  We do know that people have been killed during operation.  Without proper data we can make no sense of the “worker death” issue.

7. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, wave, and biomass/gas.

8. The water is returned to the source at an elevated temperature which can cause environmental damage.  We are seeing reactors being shut down during heat waves because the water coming out of the reactor exceeds safe limits.

9.  Right.  Reactors need no insurance.  Let the taxpayers eat the cost when one goes sour like what is happening in Japan right now.

You really have no idea how many close calls we’ve had in the US, do you?

You think we’ve got some sort of special mojo that will keep Homer from melting one down just because We’re America!!!

7. Because there are better alternatives.
Please enrich me on these better alternatives.
#8 by Tom
Yes it uses water, a pretty large amount also. But every drop is returned to the environment. The only thing it changes is the temperature of the water. Which is only a degree basically next to the plant ,I live less than a mile from one and I swim about a mile or two away.
#9 insurance
The need for insurance is close to 0. The regulations that are needed to run a nuclear power plant is very strict. The NRC has regulations for just about everything making the US Nuclear Plants extremely safe, the reason a tradgidy happened in Japan is the had very loose rules compared to us. We actually have training to handle what happened in Japan, before it actually happened, and when it did they reviewed it to make sure it is the right way to go about it
 
Sorry my answers became shorter, I was running out of time, as I ( believe it or not) have a life.

Now, this wasn’t a lot of explosive material, and it hadn’t made it to the reactor area.  It was found in a truck on the grounds.

But it highlights one of the several problems with nuclear.  There is a danger with nuclear fission.  And things like equipment failures, human mistakes, strong earthquakes, or terrorism can cause massive damage.

Set off some explosives in a wind farm, drop a turbine, kill a cow….

Siting is a very major problem. I don’t care what the fuel is or how safe it is, most communities will not allow a reactor to built close to them.
Cooling water is a problem. There are not many places where ample amounts of water are available and almost all of them will have significant community opposition.

With a warming climate it’s going to be even harder to find fresh water sites for cooling supplies. We’re going to see more existing reactors shut down during heat waves as it is.

You could use air cooling, but then you’ve got a bigger eyesore and a bunch of noise that will make it hard to site.

We don’t have enough trained and experienced engineers and technicians to build more than a very few plants at a time. And it would take many years to train a new batch.

The price of reactors continues to increase. The price of both wind and
solar continue to fall. The price of solar is plummeting.

Apparently major progress is being made with grid scale battery storage.
Aquion is going into production this year with a projected cost of
$0.06/kWh and they expect to get that cost down to less than $0.02/kWh.
MIT’s liquid metal battery looks like it will be even cheaper.

Wind is producing electricity at six cents per kWh. And expected to drop
another 20%.

Six cent wind stored at six cents is at least three cents cheaper than low
end nuclear (15 cent) estimates.

Solar is already as cheap as new nuclear and should be under ten cents
long before any new nuclear plant will come on line.

Here’s nuclear’s competition:

40% from wind direct, 20% from solar. 40% from stored wind and hydro.

That mix would cost 9.2 cents per kWh vs. at least 15 cents for new nuclear.

Notice I didn’t even put cheap natural gas in the mix. Unfortunately we’ll
keep using it for a while and it will bring the nine cents even lower.

Who is going to put up their personal money to build a nuclear reactor when
it will be impossible to sell at a profit?

(The only place in the US where a reactor is being started is where the
local regulations let the nuclear plant operator charge customers whatever
the power costs. Not a free market.)

The possible 60 year life of a reactor is no different from any other
source. Wind farms might need a turbine rebuild after 30 years, but they
are already very much cheaper than nuclear based on a 20 year payoff.

Solar panels have been in service for over 30 years and are still going
strong. We have no idea how long they will last, but 60 certainly looks
reasonable.

Hydro systems are easily lasting more than 100 years.

Sodium-ion battery prices are based on “using them up”. And they are
affordable at that price. Liquid metal batteries – it’s not clear that
there’s anything in them that would wear out.

Be happy.

That argument “Nuclear isn’t a fast enough response to climate change is a joke because activists have been saying that for 15 years and keep trying the strangle it further so it can’t be in time.  It will still be on your list in another 15 years.

Because it is too expensive

A thorium reactor over 60 years would cost around $500 million and the live of the reactor could be extended due to lack of melt down concerns (it can’t sustain a chain reaction without neurons being fired at it).  This also cuts down licensing and security costs and construction times.
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_costs/thorium_costs.php

Because the problem of waste remains unresolved

Thorium produces far less waste and check out Gabon in Africa and the naturally occuring nuclear reactors that existed 200 million years ago.  The waste produced from these didn’t move more than 3 metres from its origin and the underground water was not contaminated.  This was a situation where the waste wasn’t sealed up in drums like today. 
http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/531

The amount of waste produced by nuclear power is 2  pounds for each person lifetime energy needs  (fits into a coke can) compared to 68 tonnes of coal put into the atmosphere per person.  The
waste from 50 years of reactor operation could fit in a single football
field,  amounting to 77,000 tons (1,540 tons per year). We discard
179,000 tons of batteries per year in the United States and they contain toxic heavy metals.

Because it will increase the risk of nuclear war?

Thorium makes it pretty much impossible to build nuclear weapons from and to be honest it is unlikely uranium is feasible.  I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that no nation has ever produced
nuclear weapons from plutonium generated by a nuclear power plant but
use
plutonium-239 which is made in a special production reactor. Rather
than adding to nuclear weapons capabilities nuclear power plants have helped reduce the number by using the material from dismantled nuclear warheads and
bombs for fuel.

Because there are safety concerns? 

Nuclear power has killed less people than any other energy source per kWh.  Heard of the the Bangiao Hydro Dam in China collapsed in 1975 and killed over 150,000 people. That saidf I am not against hydroelectricty and think it is safe but hypocritical of people to point the finger at nuclear.  Have a look at http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/fullaccidents.pdf  A thorium nuclear reactor can’t melt down.

Because there are better alternatives”

It depends on your point of view.  Some believe nuclear and renewables is like comparing apples to oranges and should be used together.  Then you have others who like to go to extremes and say nuclear can handle it all or renewables can do it 100%.  I notice a trend here saying baseload electricity isn’t required and renewables can take care of the worlds electricity if nuclear, gas and coal are taken away (I’d like to know when they think this is possible,  ie today?).  Are renewables taking care of the 74% predicted increase in energy demand by 2030 also?

Anyway,  I am happy to be proved wrong.

1. Because it is not a fast enough response to climate change
2. Because it is too expensive
3. Because the need for baseload electricity is exaggerated
4. Because the problem of waste remains unresolved
5. Because it will increase the risk of nuclear war
6. Because there are safety concerns
7. Because there are better alternatives”Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1eyLV)

1. Because it is not a fast enough response to climate change
2. Because it is too expensive
3. Because the need for baseload electricity is exaggerated
4. Because the problem of waste remains unresolved
5. Because it will increase the risk of nuclear war
6. Because there are safety concerns
7. Because there are better alternatives”Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1eyLV)
 

Let me repeat for you…

”
Solar and offshore wind work very well to supply power during peak hours.  Onshore gives us a lot of nighttime power.  The task is how to best integrate all the renewable sources and to create storage to tie things together.”Again…”The task is how to best integrate all the renewable sources and to create storage to tie things together. ”

It’s very clear that we don’t need to have “baseload” plants rumbling along 24/7.  And since coal and nuclear are expensive ways to generate electricity that’s a good thing.