> You got to be joking here, look at the very few ones "under construction" ones in Europe and their actual capacity, that's pretty much what I said. Nothing he

> You got to be joking here, look at the very few ones "under construction" ones in Europe and their actual capacity, that's pretty much what I said. Nothing here will help for a winter spike, those won't even cover a full day of bad production. It's still doubling in under a decade. And that's just the pumped storage. Not all hydro. "You might need backup 5% of the time, stop and wait 30 years instead" isn't the slam dunk you think it is. Weirdly it would be the optimal thing for the fossil fuel industry though. > That's kind of taking the consumption of a 60s car with the known petrol fields of the time and doing a multiplication, it's bad maths and bad economics. That's assuming modern 65MWd/kg reactors. And that's just to meet the first one or two fuel loads. It's not some far future scenario where exploration has time to pay off -- the mines need to be being developed today. At the tail end of those reserves, the raw Uranium alone costs more than half the present day all-in cost for solar or wind. > Those costs are included in the nuclear but not on the renewable part sorry, to get a full comparison you would need to add maintenance, waste management, backup costs and diplomatic & environmental costs for renewables which I don't think anybody is counting now. Waste management, backup, diplomatic, and environmental costs are not included on the nuclear side either. And O&M alone is enough to pay for the renewable generation in a good area and a backup gas plant to sit idle.