Admittedly i hadn't really considered decommission costs so thanks for pointing that out.
Nuclear power plants are only designed to last a few decades before they need to be decommissioned
There has never been a reactor decommissioned due to reaching end of life cycle, they do occasionally go down to be serviced/upgraded. New plants are also designed to last a minimum of 60 years. Outside of the ones that have gone poorly, they are generally closed because of fears from populace and political pressures, so basically, for no reason at all.
Photo-voltaic Panels lose about .5% efficiency per year, so in 25 years you are running at 80%, and if you can show me a company that is OK with 80%, I will show you a failing company.
which right now costs more then it does to build them.
$500-$600 million is a lot of cash but, current reactors cost around $7-15 billion, 10% or less to take it offline doesn't seem terrible, nor, more expensive than construction.
Look up the actual construction and decommissioning costs and compare them to solar in terms of year over year energy production.
According to Wikipedia, installation/build cost of a solar farm was at $3.3/W. McGuire Nuclear Reactor is capable of 2200MW.
3.3 x 2200000000 = $7.26 billion build-out So, we are kinda splitting hairs there aren't we? Can't fairly compare total costs though, because to my knowledge (and brief Google) there has never been a decommissioned Solar Farm.
Cant argue about operating costs however, if you think all you are gonna have to do is give em a good washing now and then, I feel that you must not spend much time working with technology.
It should also be noted, there are waste processing centers being opened designed to be operational for 90 years, employing 1000+ people its entire lifespan. .
And Finally land usage:
Topaz Solar Farm (largest in US) is currently listed as 550MW capable. It occupies 9+ sq/mi and use 9 million pv panels and power 160,000 homes. You are looking at possibly 36 sq miles and 36 million pv panels for that 2200MW. Just to power the homes of America (est 125 milllion) would take a Solar farm the size of New Jersey. That's just residential, which only account for about 13% of US energy consumption.
There are only so many consistently sunny square miles in the country, and I imagine the residents of New Mexico would get kinda pissy if we covered their entire state in panels. Granted, California might be looking for something to replace their agricultural sector since its never ever going to rain there again.
Yes, PV panels will get better, and more efficient. But that takes R&D money that needs to be factored in to total "costs". We understand nuclear, we've done the majority of that R&D. PV Panels are just getting started. (excluding Fusion cause if we ever get that working proper, energy worries are a moot point)
I am ALL FOR Solar and Wind, lets just be realistic with what is actually capable of doing. The production of Panels/Mills, the infrastructure, transportation of them etc, all that requires energy that is coming from somewhere, which is currently Oil/Coal/Gas. Why not Nuke?
PS. I found all this info on Wikipedia & Topaz Solars website. perhaps you should look up the actual costs.