Apologies for not replying sooner. Costs can be pretty opaque when the State is in charge of selling something. In the present case, however, acquisition of the fuel and disposal of the waste have been factored in. A provision is also made to dismantle each plant by paying into an escrow.

Wind is interesting but has the major problem of being rapidly variable. Moreover, Germany and Spain, which are big on wind, went through several episodes of zero wind during days of high power consumption (Germany in particular had a stationary anticyclone sitting on the country, resulting in no wind and freezing cold, which brought down the grid thanks to electric heating).

The only way to make wind viable is to associate it with generators powered by natural gas turbines, which are able to increase their production from 0 to 100% within seconds. This can be viable only in countries with large gas resources. Interestingly, large natural gas companies are investing in wind energy -- see T. Boone Pickens in the US. Otherwise, since wind turbines can't follow the load, they would wreck havoc on the grid. In general, energy sources that can't follow the load (that is, adjust their output to regional consumption) are doomed to being accessories at best, and must be supplemented by highly variable generators (read: gas). Wind falls into that category. I wish it was otherwise, but physics is a harsh mistress.

I disagree about your assessment of nuclear energy. Until fusion comes along, this technology is the only practical way we can wean the world from burning fossil fuels.

Wrong, they pay heavily all the way. Nuclear fuel, reprocessing, building the plant, operating it, and dismantling it are all separate accounts, and it's handled by scores of private contractors. All of that is paid for by the electricity bills. That's still cheaper than other forms of electric power.

I agree. I question the mode of cost calculation in the article.

Here is a reference point. 82% of France's electricity comes from nuclear power plants. The price of power for industrial customers is about 0.06 USD/kWh. This includes huge personnel and pension costs (powerful unions) and sloppy financial management (politically appointed execs). So it means that actual production and delivery costs are below this price point. Since EDF, the French electricity semi-public firm, is a monopoly, there is little incentive to be more cost-effective. And yet, even so, they achieve a cost of 6 cents per kWh.

I am therefore not impressed with the 0.16,USD/kWh quoted. It' s almost 3 times more expensive than what the French can get, without even trying to be cost-effective.