[selfmodruntime]

> how the fuck does nuclear power make any economic sense

Because these plants run for 80+ years (some countries are now considering 100) while most renewables run for 25 at most. And also because `plus batteries` doesn't exist. The world battery capacity isn't enough to power California for a single week. Large scale battery technology isn't even in its infancy, it just doesn't exist.

Don't forget, you've paid for the nuclear power plant once. You will pay for a new set of renewable capabilities every 25 years in <current-year + 25> dollars.

[dalyons]

25 year replacement for solar is a myth. [1] . They may degrade to ~80% but they keep on working and producing, so far it seems almost indefinitely.

[1] https://www.ecoticias.com/en/goodbye-to-the-idea-that-solar-...

[selfmodruntime]

So in essence they studied all of six (6) panels in a non-dusty region with a mild climate and without notable saline corrosion AND the article even mentions that most other studies are well in the 25-30 year range. Also the study clearly outlines that older silicone panels can't be compared against modern mass produced variants. Finally the study only examines modules that are still working, failed or removed systems are not in the dataset so you have heavy hidden distortion.

The sample size is extremely limited. Six systems are not at all robust enough for global conclusions. This popsci article of yours doesn't hold up to scrutiny and neither it nor the study are enough to make sweeping generalizations like declaring the common 25 year lifecycle a myth.

[dalyons]

The “common 25 year lifecycle” was never a drop dead expectation. That’s usually just what they’re warrantied for. It’s always been a common misunderstanding

Edit: If you don’t trust my source , please show one of your own that proves they need to be replaced at 25yrs