You're overlooking intermittency. Baseload plants like nuclear, coal, hydroelectric etc. can generate 90-100% of their rated capacity, and (contingent on demand) will do so. Intermittent sources like wind, solar can not. With large wind farms the capacity factor is something like 20-30%. 25 GW rated = 5-8 GW actual generation.
If we're looking at the same thing, the study applied to residential "microturbines" located on roofs, not the large ones located 100m above ground offshore.
Also Nuclear is still a greenhouse gas emitter. Concrete is the third biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the world and concrete is the largest input cost in terms of building a Nuclear plant.
More FUD. Nuclear plants use far less concrete per megawatt capacity than wind turbines, and their lifecycle CO2 emissions are correspondingly smaller (but they're both orders of magnitude below coal, so it's a moot point)
If you are going to say that I think you also have to look at the availability of the Nuclear plant. If the plant is only available to produce power for %50 percent of it's expected 40 year lifespan then it's actual output is only 45% of it's capacity to produce.
FUD. US nuclear plants average a capacity factor of >90%.
Slashdot Mirror
And just that is enough to quadruple the retail costs, relative to the US.
"Key World Energy Statistics 2008-"
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1199
US residential: 10.27 c/kWh
Denmark residential: 38.15 c/kWh
You're overlooking intermittency. Baseload plants like nuclear, coal, hydroelectric etc. can generate 90-100% of their rated capacity, and (contingent on demand) will do so. Intermittent sources like wind, solar can not. With large wind farms the capacity factor is something like 20-30%. 25 GW rated = 5-8 GW actual generation.
"The capacity factor of wind power"
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/the-capacity-factor-of-wind-power/
If we're looking at the same thing, the study applied to residential "microturbines" located on roofs, not the large ones located 100m above ground offshore.
"Home wind turbines in UK warming the planet: study"
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL3056582220071130
More FUD. Nuclear plants use far less concrete per megawatt capacity than wind turbines, and their lifecycle CO2 emissions are correspondingly smaller (but they're both orders of magnitude below coal, so it's a moot point)
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/07/per-peterson-information-on-steel-and.html
FUD. US nuclear plants average a capacity factor of >90%.
"Table 9.2 Nuclear Power Plant Operations, 1957-2007"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb0902.html
Actually you can skip two of those steps, jumping directly from heat to hydrogen in a "thermochemical" process such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur-iodine_cycle