This is typical of nuclear plants where the fuel costs are low compared with fossil fuel costs.
No its not a fossil fuel
Fossil fuel power stations typically cost about $2.1 dollars per watt to build solar stations around $7 at present. The efficiency is increasing and costs are falling. This of course does not represent the cost to the consumer. In addition it does not take into account all the various other costs and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Fuel (fossil stations), poor sunlight (solar stations). Maintenance costs are similar for single plants but solar stations do not have the capacity of fossil fuel stations.
Carbon Dioxide, particular matter, mercury and radioactive trace elements are released/emitted from the fossil fuel thermal power stations and cause damage to the environment. Also, paying for the fuel, clean up and remediation of pollution-prevention. :)
Oil is a fossil fuel.
Fossil fuel is cheap
Fossil
Gasoline is a fossil fuel.
Sorry, no, wool is not a fossil fuel.
Typical fossil fuels are used to build the turbine and construct it. Once built wind is the main energy component for the wind turbine itself. Fossil fuel plants run on standby (not producing power yet consuming fuel) to backup these systems. This fuel is ignored to maintain the "green" status of Wind systems.
Yes it is a fossil fuel.
You could approach this for a particular plant that is operating by going to the operating company. I can give you a link to a paper which tries to examine the situation for new build plants. The general conclusion is that costs of new nuclear are similar to new fossil fuel plants. The costs are made up differently however. For a nuclear plant the capital costs are very high but the fuel costs low, for fossil fuel plants it is the opposite. this means there is a lot of uncertainty in any prediction. See link below