6 ms·

Still doesn't make sense. Even if what you say is true, then the valid comparison is to compare nuclear to wind rather than nuclear to solar.

• afterburner 6y ago
  Again, what the hell are you talking about. These are bad faith arguments. Moving goalposts, redefining everything. What a joke.
  • hntrader 6y ago
    I'll put aside your rudeness (I assume you think this is a status contest, or maybe you've just misunderstood my intentions) and try to explain again. Solar being cheaper than nuclear makes it a foregone conclusion for daytime electricity supply. However the direct comparison you were making in the first paragraph of your original post between nuclear price and solar price is nonsensical because they're not in direct competition with each other. Nuclear satisfies a slightly different use case to solar. Nuclear instead is in direct competition with sources that are capable of providing base load power such as gas and solar+storage. The only meaningful price comparison is between nuclear and these other sources, since we need to decide if the stack is going to be solar+storage, solar+nuclear, etc. Comparing solar prices directly to nuclear prices without considering the whole stack is just a meaningless comparison.
    • afterburner 6y ago
      Let me get this straight. You think every time I mention solar, I mean solar without storage? Lol have fun arguing with yourself.
      • Daho0n 6y ago
        Go back to reddit.