• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m talking about the exact same thing. Wind and solar are cheaper by that metric.

    Nuclear is still cost-competitive with long-duration storage, so if that doesn’t fall in price (which is what has been happening with storage recently) it might make sense to use for 10% or so of overall generation.

    • waddle_dee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That is inaccurate. You can look up LCOE for all of these and Nuclear is right up there with Gas. Also, you can’t have 10% of your generation be nuclear with solar and wind making up the majority. You literally cannot produce that much electricity. Nuclear, being arguably the most efficient source of energy and the largest capacity, it makes sense for nuclear to be in place of our coal and gas plants with solar and wind supplements. But hey, that’s just what I studied for a living.