> solar panels, wind turbines and batteries being material-heavy and requiring a non-diminishing amount of labour per installation. This is not correct, a good

> solar panels, wind turbines and batteries being material-heavy and requiring a non-diminishing amount of labour per installation. This is not correct, a good chunk of the lowering costs comes from lowering both the amount of material used and in further decreases in the amount of labor to install. That's the fundamental source of innovation driving down prices. To assume that there's going to be a sudden stoppage of all these improvements, without at least some sort of slowdown first, requires an astonishing strong belief not backed by any sort of inspection into the actual reality of these things. It's rather remarkable how absolutely pessimistic people are about renewables in spite of the evidence, and how people are proven wrong year after year with their bad assumptions, but there's so little learning. Go and find the most optimistic person about the potential of solar and batteries, and there's a 90% chance that solar and batteries will outperform their expectations. Go and find the most pessimistic person's estimates about nuclear, and there's a 50% chance that nuclear will underperform their already low expectations. Just read through the tragedy of the original article to see how overly optimistic the nuclear folks are.