Less efficient yes in absolute production, but solves the majority of the storage problem. Which is a huge problem, one that most people are ignoring, and many

Less efficient yes in absolute production, but solves the majority of the storage problem. Which is a huge problem, one that most people are ignoring, and many of the storage solutions lower PV efficiency as much or more. Here are a couple links from my comment history, the first is a comparison of KW costs, and the second is an overview of what the Chinese are doing. https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u... https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx#SCRO_report https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... I've repeatedly posted hard facts on this board and few people bother to do much research at all, overwhelmingly posting puff pieces and data which is obviously wrong (aka nameplate install/$, average capacity factors (because average doesn't tell you the worse case, which is required for a reliable grid)) and a bunch of other things that get hand waved away by "renewable" supporters, like the fact that in most places with a lot of "renewables" its actually 50+ year old hydro and not wind/solar providing the energy. Or that places with a lot of wind/solar are basically green washing their natural gas usage (like Germans are suddenly discovering). edit: And to be clear, did you down vote the parent comment too, which states as fact something that is provably wrong (that nukes are more expensive than wind/solar, note the vox article which points out they were cheaper than natural gas plants at one point.), but commonly accepted, or did you let your own personal bias decide the misinformation he was repeating sounded correct?