The cost analysis of solar vs wind vs nuclear are messed up when you add the cost of a New grid to make use of it.

Next Town over is putting in 20 miles new transmission lines, cost estimated at $15 millions. These are not even big lines. Going with larger lines must cost more? Still working on right of ways two years.
The lines are going into GM test facility, employees 4,000 people. The lines are a third redundant power feed. Three years ago they lost power for a day and still pissed about it.

Macro power generation looks good cost wise until adding in the upgrade cost necessary to the transmission grid. Part of the system cost. Micro generation starts looking more attractive.
Loosing 10% to transmission changes the equations.

Recently a company started production of a $1/w solar cell, first 18 months sold out.
If solar panels were produced in volume to be put on homes... how would the economics change?

Prior post was using the numbers for total energy. Home energy can be used in many forms.
Newest generation heat pumps are looking attractive even for Michigan!

The final comment of micro vs macro.
Micro has a fixed cost over a period of time. Mostly up front, little after.
Macro power will forever have to new bill to pay!!! Always going UP!
Which fits in your wallet?