From: a.ashfield The Andasol 1 plant cost around €300 million (US$380 million) to build … It produces power at $0.35/kWh which is guaranteed for 25 years(!) With successful plants like that who needs failures?
If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is about average. Electricity costs more than that in Germany, Denmark and a few other countries with better resources than Spain. With Russia doubling the price of natural gas every 5 years - that 35 cent price will look great in a decade, and it is guaranteed. There is no doubt the French did it right going to almost all nuclear, at a time when it was affordable - since like Spain, they have little coal, hydro, oil or gas. Now they have electricity for half the price of most of Europe. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/ But what is the real cost of a nuclear meltdown, especially in a country with high tourism income? If the ratepayer in France had to pay for insurance against Fukushima type accidents, the cost could be closer to that of solar in Spain. The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. In the long run, any renewable like solar at high initial cost is better in the long run than even nuclear … unless we reprocess – like the French do. Impossible in the USA due to politics. Interesting fact which is more than a metaphor for solar – the Golden Gate Bridge was almost not built because the price seemed incredibly high at the time. Nowadays, with the 6 buck toll, it returns the initial investment every 6 months.
