It includes as optional extras the bits that some wish to miss out.
take this graph:
There are also two caveats attached to the graph. These are:
1 With the exception of nuclear, the analysis assumes that decommissioning is cost neutral. The capital cost estimate for nuclear plant includes an allowance for the costs of decommissioning.
2 For the purpose of this study, wave and marine technologies are deemed to be predictable and therefore have not been burdened with the additional cost of standby generation.
So Nuclear including decommisioning costs less per MW than any other generation method other than CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) and is less than one third of the cost of offshore wind generation and well under half the cost of on shore wind generation. Even if you exclude the extra spinning reserve needed by wind, nuclear is still massively cheaper.
But pure cost is not the only issue. One item constantly raised by pro-windies is energy security, so lets have a look at a graph concerning a price variation of +/- 20% on each energy fuel.
So because nuclear uses so little fuel, the cost of the fuel is not far off immaterial. Also all nuclear fuel can either be created from existing stocks (85 years worth) and at worst purchased from the massive ore supplies in secure countries like Australia. With nuclear there is no risk to fuel supply.
The final argument bleated out by proponents of wind concerns CO2 emissions. Look at this:
Clearly the cheapest and least polluting technology is Nuclear. In fact just about everything , even with carbon mitigation is more cost effective than wind.
So why are we continuing to ruin our countryside with these monstrous, ineffective and massively expensive wind turbines?
All answers please to Billothewisp, written on a clean £50.00 note.Please mark all bank notes "ROC subsidy"