Geo - like hydro-power - is only suitable in very particular geographies and so has relatively tiny scope for decarbonizing electricity generation. Solar is on

Geo - like hydro-power - is only suitable in very particular geographies and so has relatively tiny scope for decarbonizing electricity generation. Solar is on average cheaper but the cheapest wind is cheaper than the cheapest solar[1]. Nuclear just isn't in the ballpark in terms of cost or utility or project risk. Intermittency is a problem for all generation types - they just have different modes. The average nuclear reactor in the US, for example, spends about 10% of it's time off-line, coal generation is even worse - about 15% unavailable with 10% unscheduled. So you still need backup idling capacity for thermal generation. Particularly nuclear requires a great deal of complimentary dispatchable sources given you need to be able to match demand which can have a daily peak 2 or 3 times higher than trough and nuclear reactors can take a day or more to vary their output. No comment on the looks - to me they aren't ugly. There is a plausible route for wind - at least to get to 70% or so supply. There are a few countries in Europe already over the 35% mark for wind and grid engineers seem confident that much more can added with current tech. Wind complements solar as their output is generally not correlated - combining both reduces the overall output variance. Wind has higher capacity factor than solar[2]. In more northern latitudes solar capacity factor can be as low as 10%. While in some places on-shore wind capacity factors can be higher than 40%. 1GW of installed capacity wind will, on average, provide 40% more electricity than 1GW of solar based on the US Energy Information Agency figures. [1] https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...