> But this is simply wrong. One can easily imagine a 100% renewable system of that kind. At current costs in the US it would likely be cheaper than a nuclear so

> But this is simply wrong. One can easily imagine a 100% renewable system of that kind. At current costs in the US it would likely be cheaper than a nuclear solution. Sorry my friend, in order to make assertions like that one has to take the time to do some of the math. I have. The gap between what people are imagining and reality is quite large. Assuming a 1000 GW requirement, in other words, we need that much power and we do not currently have it...so we have to build it: Using 325 W panels, considering their cost, cost of installation, wiring, structure costs, permits and battery (without them the whole thing is kind of pointless), the total cost of the system is in the order of $40 trillion dollars. A 1.1 GW nuclear power plant costs about $9 billion. We would need 910 of them. That total cost comes out to $8.2 trillion. In other words, nuclear is about 1/5 the cost of the equivalent solar system. However, the story does not end there. This is still very much hand-wavy until we look at other numbers. For example, how long would it take to build these systems? Assuming it takes 10 days to install a solar a 10 kW system, and we manage to install 10,000 solar systems at a time (simultaneously) across the entire nation. In other words, every ten days 10,000 new systems come online. Well, we need one billion systems, which means this will take 2740 years. Imagine that: We bring online 365000 systems PER YEAR and it still takes nearly 3000 years. Check my math please. Nuclear? If we had a mandate to start building nuclear plants tomorrow and we took the time to setup a the process and controls to achieve a run rate of 1 year per plant...and we build one plant per state per year...that means 50 per year. Which translates into 1000 plants in 20 years. If I am off by 100%, this means we do it in 40 years. To me nuclear --with commitment and a no-bullshit united effort to execute-- seems like the only viable solution. There's more... How many cells would be needed for the aforementioned solar solution. Assuming approximately 1200 cells per battery pack (Tesla 2170's), this means we need nearly 3.5 trillion cells. I am not even going to get into what this might translate into in terms of minerals, mining, transportation, CO2 generation, environmental damage, etc. I don't even know how long it might take to make 3.5 trillion cells and how much energy it might take to make them. These are numbers I need to research and put into the model at some future point. Right now, given what I've looked at, the whole thing seems entirely ludicrous on first inspection. Even better, the above calculation for solar assume 100% efficiency. In other words, a 10 kW solar array that actually produces 10 kW 24/7, which is ridiculous. It also assumes inverters and energy conversion equipment that is 100% efficient...which is equally ridiculous. What I am trying to convey, going back to your comment, is that we can imagine anything at all and it can sound fantastic. Until we take the time to do the math there is no way to know if reality and these imaginary solutions actually align in any way. I don't think I am wrong at all. I could be off by some amount, sure, yet I think the difference still dwarfs solar by far. If we want electric ground transportation, I think the only path forward is a massive commitment to nuclear. Speaking of utopia: It would be fantastic to see the worlds nuclear arsenals being converted to nuclear energy generation. From destroying humanity to improving life all over the planet. Not sure that kind of leadership exists anywhere.