Yes, correcting for capacity factor is essential if you want to compare potential energy generated over a year (which is perhaps not the most common use of thes

Yes, correcting for capacity factor is essential if you want to compare potential energy generated over a year (which is perhaps not the most common use of these numbers). Gas generators are typically less than 50% capacity factor, and batteries should have course have a 0% capacity factor for comparison of energy created over a year However, your capacity factors for solar are far too low, average CF is above 20%. There are roughly as many installs with CF>30% as there are with CF<15%.: https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors Also omitted from this view is the cost per MWh delivered to the grid. A great overview of the current state of the technology, including costs ($40/MWh), is here: https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/utility_scale_solar_2023_edition_slides.pdf https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/utility_scale_solar_... There's also a great overview of the state of batters here, where conservative estimates of lifetime cost of stored energy results in about $88/MWh: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf For the new nuclear cost, it's actually really hard to dig up, because it's a bit too embarrassing to the industry. But by taking the factors from this slide deck: https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ And scaling the slide 14 numbers for $9k/kW overnight cost to the real cost of $15/kW at Vogtle, and we get nuclear costs north of $180/MWh for nuclear when including the new subsidies from Biden's IRA legislation (north of $200/MWh unsubsidized).