Here's how awful solar is compared to nuclear:
The last reactor plant in the US finished was Palo Verde in Arizona. It cost $11.5 billion in 2016 dollars to complete. It produces 4000 MW and takes up 4,000 acres of land. It averages 32,300 GW / yr of power produced.
Ivanpah solar in California is the US's largest solar array. It cost $2.5 billion in 2016 dollars to complete. It produces 400 MW, takes up 4000 acres of land and averages 940 GW / yr.
Worse, Ivanpah has a listed capacity factor (averaged power output vs. nameplate per day) of 20.5% versus Palo Verde's 94% capacity factor. That is, Ivanpah is expected to produce just 82 MW-days of power per day versus Palo Verde producing 3760 MW-days of power per day.
That equates to Palo Verde being 46 times as efficient, producing 34 times more power per year, and doing that at roughly 5 times the cost to build the plant.
For Ivanpah to produce an equivalent output requires a footprint of 136,000 acres or about 212.5 square miles. This is roughly 15 miles x 15 miles of solar array. The cost would be approximately $85 billion dollars in 2016 dollars.
So, even if you triple the cost of building a new nuclear powerplant over what Palo Verde cost, it absolutely still demolishes solar in terms of cost of construction and operation. That's how much more efficient nuclear is.
The only reason it isn't being used and argued for is that those against it are either retarded morons who know nothing, and /or are scientific illiterates who are scared to death of all things nuclear because of the massive amount of lies and propaganda put out by the environmental Left (who fit the above two criteria).
