Isn't the nameplate capacity of solar the peak production when the sun is right overhead and the panels are new? Or is it spec'd differently at utility scale?

Say 20% around-the-clock production versus the nameplate capacity, cell degradation, and battery storage doubling the cost, and those costs are starting to look in the same ballpark. Plus having some diversity of sources isn't bad.

▲

toomuchtodo a day ago | parent [-]

Battery backed solar is cheaper than nuclear today, and any nuclear generator will take at least ten years to build, shovel in ground to first kWh to the grid.

▲

mindslight a day ago | parent [-]

Sure, I don't disagree with that argument, and think the destructionists ending the solar subsidies is a treacherous "mistake". But I'd also say that some diversity is worth it in and of itself, rather than relying on one single thing to solve it all, as technologists tend to want to do.

▲

toomuchtodo a day ago | parent [-]

This argument is easy to make when it’s other people’s tax dollars or capital. I don’t mind this position, as long as it isn’t my capital or tax dollars being incinerated on high risk suboptimal energy system investment, based on the evidence and known trajectories. For those who believe it’s worth it, I fully support them contributing their capital or tax dollars to their belief system.

	▲	mindslight a day ago \| parent [-]
		Given how this regime has squandered money and ballooned the debt for things that are outright harmful to our country, I'd say as long as the reactors don't melt down (whether through sheer incompetence or as part of a deliberate plan) we're coming out ahead. I certainly wish we were at a place where fiscal responsibility arguments had relevance, but we just aren't.