[ElectronCharge]

"1. This is excellent. It means we're well on our way to sustainable energy generation. Wind and solar are only going to get cheaper. Even without subsidies, there is no reason to ever build another coal or oil fired generation facility. Natural gas will stick around until utility scale batteries ramp up, to where peaking plants are too expensive compared to utility scale batteries."

Wind/solar + batteries will never cover everything, because statistically there will be an event that the (very finite) capacity can't meet - then people will die, either freezing or overheating.

"2. Nuclear is dead. Very dead. Thorium. Fast breeder. Pebble bed. I don't care which you pick, no one is going to pour 10 years and $1-4 billion into a plant that won't be cost competitive when it turns up (maybe some governments, but you can't fix that; it'll just get mothballed)."

You're very wrong here. China in particular is investing heavily in nuclear going forward, including thorium. There are a number of companies here in the US, such as Flibe Energy and Thorcon that are working hard on next-gen nuclear solutions.

Nuclear is actually more environmentally friendly than wind, as it doesn't decimate bird and bat populations, has a much smaller land use footprint, and doesn't cause widespread noise pollution. It also has the additional attributes of reliability and low cost. The inherently safe next-gen nuclear technologies will come in at less than 5 cents per KWH, perhaps as low as half that.

On a level playing field, wind in particular can't compete. Eventually solar may, given enough technological breakthroughs.

[toomuchtodo]

Do you have data? Because there is enough wind potential alone in the US to satisfy the US power requirements 10x over.

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/Enabling%20Wi...

> You're very wrong here. China in particular is investing heavily in nuclear going forward, including thorium. There are a number of companies here in the US, such as Flibe Energy and Thorcon that are working hard on next-gen nuclear solutions.

While China continues to build a handful of nuclear plants, their wind generation capacity is already far ahead of what they're producing from nuclear:

http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2015/highlights5...

> On a level playing field, wind in particular can't compete.

Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies in the USA and the UK. It also kills less birds and bats than buildings, cell towers, and cats.

http://www.ewea.org/blog/2013/03/us-wind-energy-is-now-more-...

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/03/04/wind-solar-substantially...

You mention next-gen nuclear tech will come in at 5 cents/kwh. Utility solar is already below 4 cents/kwh:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/cheapest-solar-e...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-07/buffett-sc...

[ElectronCharge]

"Do you have data? Because there is enough wind potential alone in the US to satisfy the US power requirements 10x over."

When it is blowing, possibly. However it requires backup power for those inconvenient times when there is no (or little) wind. The cost of backup plants is one of the hidden costs of wind.

"While China continues to build a handful of nuclear plants, their wind generation capacity is already far ahead of what they're producing from nuclear"

China is planning on 400-500 GW of nuclear electric production by 2050. That will likely dwarf the real output of its wind farms.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/why-china-will-go-all-in-on-n...

"Wind is already cheaper than nuclear without subsidies in the USA and the UK. It also kills less birds and bats than buildings, cell towers, and cats."

Wind might be cheaper in the very best siting areas. The long-term durability of the generators remains to be seen.

Regardless, the affordability and effectiveness of wind has long been exaggerated by advocates. Here is a more balanced treatment:

http://www.strata.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Full-Report...

The report's conclusion:

'The true cost of wind energy is higher than most cost estimates calculate. Mandates requiring the use of wind energy increase electricity costs for consumers, and subsidies mask the actual cost of doing so. RPS require intermittent renewable energy to exist, but at the expense of utilities and consumers. The PTC makes wind power cheaper for utilities and consumers, but at the expense of taxpayers.

Through such policies, U.S. policymakers have essentially decided that electricity consumers will have wind power, even if it is more expensive. The cost of this decision has fallen to U.S. taxpayers and consumers of electricity. When weighing the costs and benefits of wind power, not including all of the hidden costs makes wind power appear to be a more attractive option than it actually is. Energy policy decisions, however, should be based on a more complete estimate of the cost of wind energy.'

"You mention next-gen nuclear tech will come in at 5 cents/kwh. Utility solar is already below 4 cents/kwh"

That is heavily subsidized, and also in the very best siting environment. Obviously those installations produce nothing at night, and even during the day average well under their peak output.

Solar is in no way a replacement for reliable, 24/7 nuclear generation.