I like this discussion...we may not agree on the best energy sources, but at least we're having an intelligent conversation about alternatives. Keep it up!
I see it this way: with just about anything you do in life, you have to respect the risks. A lot of people like surfing, but if you're going to do that you have to respect the danger that the ocean presents, and you have to be smart about it. Same thing when you drive a car; if you're not careful, or even when you are careful, you take a chance on getting killed. I think to say 'nuclear energy is fine' or 'nuclear energy is stupid/we don't need it' are equally wrong. I don't rule out the idea the we should be using nuclear energy. Until a better option comes along. But if we're going to use it, we'd better be damn careful with it.
The plant was built 40 years ago. New plants are safer. The tsunami caused the problem, the earthquake didn't. Like previous poster stated, with ever task there is risk. Our job is to minimize that risk as much as possible. The benefits far outweigh the risks.
Aside from the fact that your numbers are way off and your understanding of solar & electricity economics are desperately lacking, let me just say to you that electricity simply does not work that way. Solar & wind are not On-Demand power sources. Natural Gas is and is one of the best On-Demand power sources, hence why it pegs the price of electricity. Oil & Coal are also but not as fast. Hydro can also be, so can nuclear, up to a point. That's the primary reason why solar & wind as primary energy sources cannot work at this moment or the intermediate future.
Another point. We have more Nat Gas than the Saudis have oil. We have almost as much oil as the Saudis but it would be a bit more expensive to get to it. A great energy policy would solve the problem but as long as we have politicians and lobbyists running policy instead of managers or others with common sense, we will continue to have this conversation.
The problem with solar and wind power is energy storage. If it isn't inexpensive & efficient, it is a waste of time and money.
Nat Gas is a more expensive fuel source of electricity. However it is cleaner & faster. Primary source of energy in USA is still coal, because it is cheap cheap cheap. Nat Gas is used to handle load spikes. That is its primary advantage. I am not sure how much is used for baseline loads.
Keep an eye out for: Rossi's cold fusion generator. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator Looks promising -- if not for the inevitable buyout by our energy mongers to suppress the technology in order to keep profits rolling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/molten-salt-solar-plant/