They include both the construction & decommissioning costs AND the interest paid on the loan over the first 10 years of operation.

There are many studies showing that biomass yields a surplus of energy. There is also ample accounting of nitrogen fixation, soil erosion, versus production. In spite of all these so-called problems, farm yields have steadily increased over the last several decades.

You are simply being contrarian. You didn't comment on the 50% increase in nuclear waste produced annually by your proposal, and the fact that there is no where to put all the waste that is produced worldwide *now*.

The only thing we seem to agree on is that photovoltaics are a bad idea. But I have to say that hydrogen is also a bad idea. Biomass is a low-tech solution to the problem.

If you want to make biomass into a high-tech solution, then try ocean biomass, bio-engineered plants with airsacs that float, that can be cultivated on the open ocean. As we know 70% of the earth's surface is covered in water, while most of the ocean is too deep for plants to take root on the seafloor (not enough light). That's alot of solar energy on the surface waiting to be soaked up!