[bboygravity]

It's also very difficult to estimate true cost of solar at a massive scale.

Most/all solar panels that exist currently can not be recycled in a way that makes ecological or economical sense. Their operational lifetime is NOT "sustainable", nor is their economical lifetime.

Then there's death's per kWh, required energy storage (with its own ecological and economical issues), mining, transportation, CO2 per kWh, etc etc.

IMO nuclear is a pretty clear winner (as a continious energy source), but it's a complex analysis where important details are easily missed.

[cinntaile]

It's a bit contradictory to claim there is a clear winner while also mentioning it's a complex analysis where important details are easily missed. It reads more like a bias justification, since you don't provide that analysis or sources that do.

What do you mean when you say that solar panels are not sustainable in their economical lifetime?

[sottol]

Can the same not be said of nuclear to a degree? My knowledge may be outdated but afaik proper, long-term nuclear waste storage is still an open question.

Nuclear waste persists and remains dangerous for a long time and it's easy to forget and just burden future generations with it.

[cinntaile]

I think most jurisdictions have settled on or are settling on long-term underground storage. Usually in areas that are geologically stable, possibly between clay layers in case of leakage.

[pfdietz]

> Then there's death's per kWh,

Given the value of a statistical life (which is something like $12.5M in the US), the value of putative lives saved from going nuclear (using motivated numbers from nuclear advocates) would provide no justification for building nuclear plants instead of renewables. The value would be utterly dwarfed by the excessive cost of the nuclear plants.