Wind vs nuclear, USA edition: Wind advantages: * Faster to build * Electricity production can begin before entire project is finished * Lower cost per MWh

Wind vs nuclear, USA edition: Wind advantages: * Faster to build * Electricity production can begin before entire project is finished * Lower cost per MWh generated * Much less expensive worst-case-scenario failure mode * No cooling water required Disadvantages: * No guaranteed output without storage add-ons * Much lower areal density of annual generation (e.g. "how much energy can you generate yearly on a 10 km^2 parcel of land?") Other differences: * A nuclear reactor may operate 40-60 years before replacement; a wind turbine is more like 20-25 years * Over its full life cycle, a wind farm demands less human labor per MWh generated I put nuclear's long life under "other" rather than "advantages" because the other side of "long life" is "long term commitment." I also put the lower labor demands of wind under "other" because many people (not me, but many) consider "providing good jobs" as more of a benefit than a burden when they evaluate power sources. On balance, I think that wind has the advantage now and for at least the next decade or so. Nuclear could become more attractive again once there's a high penetration of intermittent renewables on the grid that make guaranteed-output sources relatively more valuable. The high areal density of nuclear power vs. wind is much more of a theoretical than a real advantage in a country like the USA, which has low population density by global standards and a lot of windy area. The more interesting contest will be between wind and PV; the latter has historically cost more nameplate watt, but its costs have been falling faster. PV also has lower day-to-day variability even though its annual capacity factor is typically lower.