[harrouet]

100%

Writing such an article without mentioning nuclear power is a sign of dishonesty.

Wind and solar can't live alone, since they only operate when nature wants it. Perfect match for hydro, but we don't all live in the Hymalaya. Most (e.g. Germany) burn gas and coal to supplement.

Nuclear is the only tech suited for decarbonation, and once you have it, you don't need solar and power because 95% of the cost is in the construction. Since you'll build it to sustain peak demand, wind or solar are just extra costs.

[tracker1]

I'm with you... beyond that, there's a lot of other costs involved with solar and in particular wind. Least of which is disposal/recycling on top of the materials and transport for assembly. I think that especially in areas that don't have extreme storms or earthquakes, that nuclear is the most sane answer for electricity generation.

I think another pressing issue would be a resurgence of natural airflow usage from underground exchanges instead of relying solely on air conditioning.

[harrouet]

Totally agreed.

The fallacy comes from the fact that few people know how to dimension an infrastructure. When you want electricity 24x7, you have to engineer the infra for peak demand. In Europe where I live, it is during winter around 6pm. It's night, and many times we have high pressure with no wind (inland).

Since hydro is reserved to particular land topologies, most countries have coal and gas ready to kick-in. France chose nuclear, which has proved to be a clear winner. Meanwhile Germany spent €500B (read it twice: €500B) and has got one of the most carbonated electricity generation -- at a high cost.