[ekianjo]

> so this isn't just opportunity cost, it's externality cost.

Everything has externalities, even the "renewables" (which are not, by definition, because nothing is renewable) - if you want to have an adult conversation you need to talk in terms of pros and cons across multiple dimensions.

[idiotsecant]

The difference is that renewables mostly end up paying for those externalities. Particularly nuke. We've managed to internalize the idea as a society that if I decide to burn an enormous amount of hydrocarbons I get to profit from the power generated (or whatever desirable outcome is present) but society gets to deal with the byproducts, none of which I am expected to contribute to handling.

This is an obviously silly structure and yet it persists.

[ekianjo]

solar panels and wind turbines are not produced out of thin air and need to be thrown away and replaced constantly.

[idiotsecant]

Oh? Solar panels made today have an expected e80 of 30 years before refurb is required. What is the expected capital lifetime that you'd consider not to be replaced 'constantly'? This compares pretty decently with natural gas turbines, especially considering that panels have a small fraction of the capital cost.