I suppose Mexico might be cheaper as Nevada lacks water, particularly in remote regions where there'd be the least local resistance. Baja California has the Pacific and the Gulf of California; Sonora has the Gulf of California.
California's unique history of opposition to nuclear is unfortunate, but there are larger dynamics that are also suffocating nuclear in California; dynamics that at most are only marginally stronger in California as compared to elsewhere in the United States. Oregon or Washington could also build more nuclear plants. They already export a significant amount of electricity to California, especially to Southern California. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie) Nuclear is disfavored everywhere, and even where it's allowed and nominally profitable the RoI still sucks, so it doesn't take much friction to shift investment elsewhere. We need change at the national level to make nuclear practical again.
Though, now I'm genuinely curious why Mexico doesn't have more than its current two nuclear plants. PEMEX? (Note: Not that I think that Mexico is some third-world country bereft of regulations and organized opposition. I'm sure many of the reasons are similar as elsewhere. Still, I bet therein lie some interesting and informative stories.)
Nuclear compete with energy generated from fossil fuel, either locally or bought from neighbours, and future battery technology. The waste problem of nuclear is a problem, but not as big as the waste problem of fossil fuels.
On the TOU plan in NV, weekdays in June thru Sept, from 1PM to 7PM, it's ~0.45/kWh -- but rest of the time it's under 6c/kWh -- comparable [or less] than your rate.
Hard to believe we haven't figured out efficient, reliable, & redundant long-distance electricity transmission at this point.
I generated almost 100kWh today & have used ~half that; it sure seems like transmission is almost as big of an issue as storage.
> It didn't have to be this way :(
And, it's not! The claimed price is in the ballpark of double the actual price.
Lowest rate is $0.25/kWh and most usage will land at $0.32/kWh. Or so you'd think reading that PDF.
I divided my total electric bill by my total usage and got $0.44/kWh. There was a lot of usage in tier 2 because I don't live in the cold and dark. I use a computer and refrigerator. The various confusing surcharges and credits make knowing what any given kWh will cost very difficult.
We're getting fleeced.
No, the federal Energy Information Agency and Bureau of Labor Statistics are not wrong.
> Please take a look at an actual PG&E bill.
Looking at an actual bill will tell you what you pay, not what is typical in the state. And if it's a PG&E bill, it will tell you a significantly higher number than is paid in non-PG&E areas (which make up a majority of the state, and which include significant territories throughout Northern and Central California, including parts of the Bay Area, as well as pretty much all of Southern California.)
"Northern California is the home of the first successful opposition to the promotion and development of commercial nuclear reactors in the U.S. In the 1950's northern and central California's privately owned utility company, PG&E, was planning to be one of the giants in the new field of nuclear energy."