> Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round number, diffe

> Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round number, different sources have slight variations). Onshore wind and natural gas are currently pushing $40, and PV solar is under $60 and dropping rapidly. So what? This is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Coal, nuclear, natural gas are all delivering stable supply 24/7. PV and Wind are highly volatile both intraday and seasonally. Why don't you add in the cost of storage? > We have a couple of decades of data on wind consistency and variation, scaling from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections on storage needs. Solar has a consistent schedule, which also helps projection, and of course we know loads. So computing just how much storage is needed is a straightforward exercise. Computing the cost is not the problem. Paying the cost is the problem: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds-renewable-energy-storage-costs-need-to-drop-90/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/08/12/new-us-study-finds-re... > A lot of people who are smarter with money and know the field more than you and me are expecting to make fortunes on this. It's a reasonably safe bet that western governments will push green energy and penalize fossil energy in the future. Of course you can make a lot of money off of that. > That says more than any numbers I could throw at you. It really only says that speculators are speculating that green energy will yield a big payout.