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

[wtmusic]

19. Please. $50 billion in "nuclear subsidies" is either just bullshit

or you don't know the difference between a subsidy and a loan guarantee. Like I said, you have some homework.

The EIA has done an excellent job taking into account all of the externalities and including the incidentals like insurance, waste dispoal, and security. That's what "levelized" means. So while something is "quite obvious" to you, it looks "quite silly" to someone else, especially when you childishly use capitals to try to make a point.

Here is all you need:

Onshore Wind 86.6
Nuclear 108.4
Offshore wind 221.5

Onshore wind is cheaper, when it works. Offshore wind costs twice as much.

Wind requires natural gas; pretending it doesn't is denial. The variable output of wind would destroy a transmission infrastructure without the load balancing that natural gas provides. That means as long as there is wind (and there is not significant storage), the two go hand in hand. It is not a "standalone" solution, and won't be for the forseeable future.

Wind energy generates carbon. Nuclear is carbon-free.
Wind has not a chance of providing enough energy to keep global temperature rise below 2C before 2050. Nuclear does.
Wind requires 169 square miles of land use to accomplish what nuclear can accomplish in 1.7 square miles.
Wind only works in some areas; in others it requires hundreds of miles of unsightly transmission lines which are being fought by landowners.

Wind can make a significant contribution in some areas, in others it's useless. It's completely inadequate at powering a 21st century global energy market and serves mostly as a decoy for the natural gas industry to advance their interests. Thanks for playing into their hands.