> So you see a doubled cost for nuclear. I don’t know what you mean. I proposed spending the same total amount. > And also, your renewable energy source won’t

> So you see a doubled cost for nuclear. I don’t know what you mean. I proposed spending the same total amount. > And also, your renewable energy source won’t work 100% of time and not at 100% of the capacity. Which also implies that you need to build multiple time what you planned to really get that planned capacity. This was already factored in to the calculation I was agreeing with. They said that to get sufficient capacity in renewables considering reduced availability, it still costs 1/2 what nuclear costs. I will copy and paste the relevant section from that comment for clarity: >> "To illustrate this point, the 2,430 MW Vogtle nuclear plant could be expected to generate 21 million MWh per year. That is enough to power about 1.75 million residential households. Meanwhile, a hypothetical 3,500 MW solar power plant would be able to produce just under 6 million MWh of electricity per year. This number is enough to power only 500,000 homes, which is considerably less than nuclear power. For solar to produce as much electricity as is generated by a nuclear power plant, it would require about 13,000 MW of utility-scale solar capacity, which about four times as much as built in the existing plants. However, the cost to build this 13,000 MW facility would be $12.1 billion, which is still just 50% of the cost of the $25 billion Vogtle nuclear plant." > https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/#Comparing_and_Contrasting https://www.solarfeeds.com/mag/solar-power-vs-nuclear-power/...