The cost has been going down steadily, and even now onshore wind only costs half as much per MWh as nuclear[0], whose cost has been going up. And that isn't even factoring in the long term cost of nuclear.
> unreliable (can you provide guaranteed output 24/7/365?)
Fair. You can only do that with a globally distributed, modern, energy grid that combines solar and wind. Not really a problem with HVDC losses being only 3.5%/1000km nowadays.
On a global scale solar and wind are a remarkably stable energy source.
> and it ruins vast landscapes
I present to you, a brown coal mine[1]. I think wind turbines actually look pretty cool, but I guess that's subjective.
I like nuclear as much as much as the next reasonable person, but your stance on wind energy doesn't strike me as reasonable.
The cost has been going down steadily, and even now onshore wind only costs half as much per MWh as nuclear[0], whose cost has been going up. And that isn't even factoring in the long term cost of nuclear.
> unreliable (can you provide guaranteed output 24/7/365?)
Fair. You can only do that with a globally distributed, modern, energy grid that combines solar and wind. Not really a problem with HVDC losses being only 3.5%/1000km nowadays.
On a global scale solar and wind are a remarkably stable energy source.
> and it ruins vast landscapes
I present to you, a brown coal mine[1]. I think wind turbines actually look pretty cool, but I guess that's subjective.
I like nuclear as much as much as the next reasonable person, but your stance on wind energy doesn't strike me as reasonable.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194327/estimated-leveliz...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine#/media/Fi...