but even without consideration of that huge additional cost:
The Germans have committed 100 Billion euro in subsidies to spur solar. For that, they have enough solar PV to generate in a year what 2 or three nuclear units can. For $100 Billion in subsidy they could have built dozens of nuclear units, generating many times that amount of electricity. Now they are stuck with the small payback for the huge investment.
So, if that kind of thing truly scares you, you should be glad we've had those nuke plants running for so many years. You can "breathe easier"!
I'm not really on one side or another of this debate, although I do believe some jobs just aren't that valuable. I just hate when folks start making claims where the numbers really aren't mature enough to support it.
Solar is already way cheaper than nuclear, has been for a few years now.
You'll have a hard time backing that claim up with real numbers. Solar doesn't come close when it comes to total cost of producing MWh on an annual basis. Many confuse price with cost, and on top of that forget that pricing is quite artificial due to production credits.
The ones that found a minimum wage hike would be most productive and sustainable for their economies did so; the ones that didn't, didn't..
Maybe some used this method, but the decisions were was highly political in most cases. Personally, I don't think it hurts or helps as much as those who sit solidly on either side of the debate believe, and fundamentally there are much larger concerns on driving a stronger economy.