Is solar really four times the cost of nuclear? No, but…

[DLnyc]

16. It is manifestly obvious that wind is cheaper than nuclear.

A wind-mill is just a big stand, some blades, and a generator to convert motion to electricity.

The nuclear plant needs the same: a turbine and a generator plus a structure to hold them plus:
o a massive containment vessel
o ultra-high pressure steam pipes made of material that won't degrade on exposure to radiation
o highly complex safety mechanisms to rapidly pull rods out in case of emergency
o a large team of highly trained technicians to operate
o a complex network of industries to mine, refine, machine and handle the fuel
o a security structure to safeguard the plant from terrorist attack
o large containment pools for the spent fuel, and a team of trained technicians to monitor and maintain them
o some mechanism (still waiting for this one) to store the cooled-down spent fuel for thousands of years
o expensive government-subsidized insurance to indemnify contractors to get them to build and maintain the thing

not to mention the hidden "external" costs of occasional disasters and, perhaps most important, an army of shills to try to convince people that a manifestly expensive, dangerous technology is cheaper than a simple, safe one.

In fact, wind is going up for about $1 per watt capacity and new nuclear looks like at least $3 to $4 per watt capacity, even before the external costs of federal insurance guarantees, waste management and cost of disasters is figured in. Even with the intermittent factor of wind (and ignoring the maintenance and life-time problems with nuclear), wind is really much cheaper. As evidenced by the fact that wind is going up like hotcakes and almost no one is building nuclear.

You are just wrong and I believe you must know it.