[dukoid]

The article provides a source for the estimation and you don't. And the reasoning why the source is underestimating the true costs sounds plausible to me. Given the harm meltdowns can cause, why is there no mandatory insurance?

[StreamBright]

The article provides sources to support his claims and leaving out 60% of the whole picture.

Key questions:

- what is providing base load coverage?

- what happens when it is cloudy or the wind does not blow?

- what do we use to balance out consumption and production?

- where does this cost counts towards?

- how much land do we need to cover with solar and wind to produce enough energy for the whole country?

- what happens in a blackout situation?

I can go on and on. This article is a super simplistic one sided propaganda piece to make people feel great about renewables.

[the_why_of_y]

Base load is an outdated concept that will become less and less relevant. Nuclear energy is unsuitable as a complement to renewable energy because it takes on the order of days to start or shut down a nuclear power plant. The key requirement is dispatchable generation, which in the short term means natural gas, and in the long term various forms of energy storage.

Nuclear is acceptable as a stop-gap technology until generation is fully switched to renewables, but its days are numbered.

[StreamBright]

What scientific breakthrough made it outadated? You do not require to have a base load production?

Nuclear is the only energy type that works in space. If humanity wants to go to the stars instead of going on Facebook we need that technology. Ironically solar power is actually collecting energy produced by nuclear fusion.