Cost of German Solar is Four Times Finnish Nuclear
Germany’s solar program will generate electricity at quadruple the cost of one of the most expensive nuclear power plants in the world, according to a new Breakthrough Institute analysis, raising serious questions about a renewable energy strategy widely heralded as a global model.
The findings challenge the idea that solar photovoltaic is a disruptive, scalable, “shelf-ready” technology with a cost advantage over nuclear. Energy analysts frequently point to Finland’s advanced nuclear project at Olkiluoto, which is seven years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget, and solar in Germany as indicative of future cost trends working against new nuclear technologies and in favor of solar.
Proponents of Germany’s Energiewende, which now involves jettisoning the country’s nuclear fleet by 2023, argue that solar and wind can make up the difference in lost capacity. A straightforward cost comparison between the two programs over the same 20-year period, however, reveals the costs of this proposition.
The Finnish European pressurized reactor (EPR), with an estimated total cost of $15 billion, will generate over half as much energy as the entire existing German solar program, which will run to roughly $130 billion. The total cost of electricity produced by German solar will be 32 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 7 cents per kilowatt-hour for the Areva-Siemens nuclear plant in Finland — a more than four-fold difference. Two such nuclear plants would generate slightly more than Germany’s solar panels, at less than a fourth the total cost.
...snip...
The reactor will generate about 225 TWh in a 20-year timeframe,3 more than half of what all of Germany’s solar panels installed between 2000 and 2011 will generate over their 20-year feed-in tariff contracts.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/cost-of-german-solar-is-four-times-finnish-nuclear/
= new reply since forum marked as read
That waste is from the nuclear weapons program... and the waste predates the current technologies for spent fuel storage.
Koplow table 28
Repeat:
Note: Subsidies are compared to EIA 2009 power prices entailing comparable busbar plant generation costs (high: 6.0 ¢/kWh; reference: 5.7 ¢/kWh).
Total estimated subsidies to new reactors are much higher than those for ongoing operations at existing plants: 4.2 to 11.4 ¢/kWh—or between 70 and 200 percent of the projected value of the electricity they would produce over the next 15 years.
Would you care to discuss the amount of lifetime subsidies or the raw amount of subsidies?
The argument you make about subsidies is thoroughly dishonest.
They don't exist anymore. It's money that will never have to be paid again so is completely separate from the current cost of nuclear power - unlike ongoing production tax credits for wind and solar, which are both completely dependent on them.
You keep acting as if they server their purpose and are no longer needed.
Have you told the Germans? They not only still have the FIT, but it has been increasing rapidly and will stick for two decades?
You have a very Bush-like notion of "mission accomplished". 
Solar modules are now below $1 a watt wholesale
And yet the manufacturers can't break even at the current prices but they're still too high to sell their glut in supply?
But this is interesting spin on your part. It isn't fair to count the FIT in the price the German's are paying for solar electricity because of this nobler purpose (as if the Euros don't need to be paid when there's a noble purpose)? If the government built 20 nuclear plants and just paid for them out of tax revenue while giving the power away to consumers... would you score the price of that power as "zero"?
