[adrianN]

Well yes, but I'm a bit skeptical that nuclear is also cheaper.

[ben_w]

IIRC nuclear is cheaper than the batteries, if that’s the limit, but land use of PV is a bit of a red herring: it can scale up or down, fit in spaces other things don’t. Rooftops, waste land, mounted on top of road noise barriers…

There’s no reason that I’m aware of not to cover the grounds of nuclear power plants in PV.

[bcrosby95]

Some companies are buying up old farmland in California's central valley and turning them into solar farms. Seems like a great transition of land use, especially if water is going to be a continual problem over here.

[ben_w]

Huh, I’d have assumed they’d do that in Nevada rather than in Central Valley. But yeah, it can go anywhere that’s otherwise unused.

[Enginerrrd]

Central Valley is a lot closer to large population centers.

[Enginerrrd]

>There’s no reason that I’m aware of not to cover the grounds of nuclear power plants in PV.

I'd be hesitant to impede access to various parts of the facility for safety reasons. Also, until a permanent storage solution is developed, reserving space for onsite storage is a very sensible thing to do.

[cbmuser]

It is cheaper as long as you don’t ignore the necessary backup power plants that solar and wind need.

[pfdietz]

It's cheaper even if you don't ignore that.