> as I said it's expensive (per MWh) The cost has been going down steadily, and even now onshore wind only costs half as much per MWh as nuclear[0], whose cos

> as I said it's expensive (per MWh) The cost has been going down steadily, and even now onshore wind only costs half as much per MWh as nuclear[0], whose cost has been going up. And that isn't even factoring in the long term cost of nuclear. > unreliable (can you provide guaranteed output 24/7/365?) Fair. You can only do that with a globally distributed, modern, energy grid that combines solar and wind. Not really a problem with HVDC losses being only 3.5%/1000km nowadays. On a global scale solar and wind are a remarkably stable energy source. > and it ruins vast landscapes I present to you, a brown coal mine[1]. I think wind turbines actually look pretty cool, but I guess that's subjective. I like nuclear as much as much as the next reasonable person, but your stance on wind energy doesn't strike me as reasonable. [0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/194327/estimated-levelized-capital-cost-of-energy-generation-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/194327/estimated-leveliz... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine#/media/File:Banneraktion_von_JunepA_im_Tagebau_Hambach,_2017.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hambach_surface_mine#/media/Fi...