[notabothonest]

> Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage.

On what basis do you make this assertion?

Because when it comes to renewables, I very rarely see any inclusion of the costs of additional large scale energy storage (probably because it still remains an unsolved issue) and I never see any inclusion of the cost of new transmission lines from any new renewables site.

The Germans have invested billions upon billions in becoming wholly renewable, with miles of new grid infrastructure (but next to no energy storage) and they are still at the mercy of Russian gas supplies... and dependant upon French nuclear power.

It's time to face reality and start investing in fission again, at least until fusion becomes a viable alternative.

[redisman]

Controversial opinión: we should invest heavily into nuclear and renewables as they seem to synergize quite well

[notabothonest]

I agree we should invest in both.

The issue comes when people think that renewables are a panacea, and we should start building renewables capacity where it doesn't even make sense. For example; wind power is great in and around the North Sea, but makes little sense in central and eastern Europe. Solar power is great in Spain, Portugal and Italy, but the ROI is very poor anywhere north of the Alps.

[pfdietz]

It's not a controversial opinion, it's an incorrect opinion. Nuclear and renewables (except for hydro) synergize poorly in most cases.