But to compare the costs of (for example) one wind farm with intermittent output to a nuclear power plant that puts out many times the energy and does so 24/7/365 isn't properly comparing dollars to dollars. It's like comparing the whole pie to a tiny slice, "that pie costs $10 and I can get this slice for $2... that pie is too expensive!"
Wind wins hands down if you do not apply the same requirements on it that nuclear provides out of the box, 24/7/365 steady energy generation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quoting from a recent analysis entitled "The Nuclear Illusion", Brown points out the cost of electricity from a new nuclear power plant costs around (USD) 14¢ per kilowatt hour compared to a wind farm's very economical 7¢ per kilowatt hour. The costings take into account capital, general operations and maintenance, transmission and distribution in relation to both options.
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=208-------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
But where in that analysis did it say anything about the cost of storage and the cost of the excess capacity that will be needed in order for wind (or solar for that matter) to become a 24/7/365 energy source. It compares the wind farms --when the wind is blowing. Well guess what? The wind isn't always there! And I think we can both agree that the sun goes away as well, at least once per day, right?
So a fair analysis of the cost of nuclear versus the cost of renewable energy has to include the needed excess capacity and storage. There is no other fair way to compare the two.