# Cost of solar vs. nuke

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cost-of-solar-vs-nuke/466937>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [October 8, 2008, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cost-of-solar-vs-nuke/466937 "2008-10-08T02:00:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2008, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cost-of-solar-vs-nuke/466937/21 "2008-10-17T21:48:15Z")

</div>

> [@xtisme](#):
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Only the nuclear plant, however, will cost money every year to mine the ore, refine/enrich the material, transport the material, and get rid of the waste afterwards\*. And if nuclear material becomes scarce for some reason (like oil currently, or coal in certain places), the price will rise. The sun doesn’t raise its price.
> 
> This simply isn’t true.
> 
> -XT

Could you explain what exactly you find untrue in my statement? You have evidence that nuclear fuel is not limited? You know of a supply of nuclear fuel that doesn’t have to be mined, processed and transported for money? You know where sunshine costs money to receive? What exactly is not true?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cost-of-solar-vs-nuke/466937.md?page=1)