> People quote low prices for renewables today that we might be scoffing at in 50 years just like we scoff at the early claim that "nuclear power is too cheap t

> People quote low prices for renewables today that we might be scoffing at in 50 years just like we scoff at the early claim that "nuclear power is too cheap to meter" There's a huge difference between nuclear and renewables that firmly comes down on the side of renewables: they can be deployed incrementally with variable levels of capital investment, and can be iterated on rapidly. Solar can be deployed at a scale from a backpack camp charger all the way up to gigawatt-scale solar farms. It's the same technology. This matters because it's exponentially easier to raise and deploy small amounts of capital continuously than to raise huge lump sums. Nuclear power requires huge lump sums. There are no reactors that, say, cost as much as a car or a laptop or even an aircraft. Reactors start at hundreds of millions for the smallest possible scale and go up rapidly from there. Incremental cost leads directly to the ability to rapidly iterate. You can't rapidly iterate on things that cost hundreds of millions to billions of dollars. Every nuclear power plant is a monument. There's been talk of small modular reactors for years, but "small" here is perhaps tens to hundreds of millions. That is still gigantic, too large for the kind of rapid iteration you get with electronics like solar panels and batteries.