BURGUM: When the sun goes down, solar produces zero electricity HUFFMAN: I want to enter into the record this amazing

[Disaffected]

108. "renewables" are less than 10% of China's primary energy..."

Source?

Whether or not Australia for instance continues to export fossil fuels is not relevant to their reductions in emissions they have achieved via solar energy.

I'm curious why you as well as resident self-proclaimed experts think solar and wind should be discarded for nuclear when:

. the waste disposal problem has no good solution

. the cost and build lead times of nuclear energy is significantly higher than the alternatives:

..............

As of early 2026, utility-scale solar and onshore wind remain the most affordable sources of new energy generation globally, while new nuclear installations are significantly more expensive.

The most common metric for comparing these costs is the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), which represents the average cost per megawatt-hour (MWh) over the lifetime of a plant, including construction, operation, and fuel.2025-2026 Cost Comparison (Unsubsidized)According to data from the EIA's 2025/2026 Outlook and Lazard's LCOE+, the typical cost ranges are:

Technology"

Estimated LCOE (USD/MWh)Primary Cost Drivers:

Utility Solar PV$30 – $65Low hardware costs; high land/permitting speed.

Onshore Wind$35 – $80High turbine efficiency; site-specific wind quality.

Offshore Wind$85 – $150Complex marine installation and transmission.

Advanced Nuclear$80 – $170+Extreme capital costs; long construction timelines.

Key Financial Differences:

1. Capital Expenditure (CapEx) vs. Operating Costs:

Nuclear: Has "very high" upfront costs. Building a new plant can take 10–15 years and cost billions, leading to high interest and financing expenses. However, its operating costs are relatively low once the plant is online.

Solar/Wind: Have significantly lower upfront costs and essentially zero fuel costs. They can be built and connected to the grid in months or a few years.

2. "Firming" and System Costs

While the generation cost of solar and wind is lower, they are intermittent. To provide the same reliability as nuclear (which is "dispatchable" or "baseload&quot , they often require:

Battery Storage: Adding storage can increase the effective LCOE of renewables by $20–$50/MWh.

Grid Upgrades: Renewables often require extensive new transmission lines to move power from windy/sunny remote areas to cities.3.

Recent Trends:

Nuclear Rebound: Despite the high cost, investment in nuclear has risen by 50% over the last five years, driven by the need for carbon-free baseload power and interest in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which aim to lower costs through factory-style manufacturing.

Renewable Maturity: After decades of rapid price drops, the "low end" costs for solar and wind have stabilized recently due to higher interest rates and supply chain pressures for materials like copper and steel.

Summary: If the goal is the lowest cost per unit of energy produced, solar and wind win decisively. If the goal is grid stability without fossil fuels, nuclear is often viewed as a necessary, albeit much more expensive, partner in a diversified energy portfolio.

.......................

I can't vouch for the accuracy of the above - it is what Gemini chugs out but it seems reasonable.

I guess the ultimate best solution is fusion power but who knows if/when that will happen.