> By every measure I could find, solar was over twice the cost of nuclear.
So, please by patient with me, i'm not trying to make you look dumb or anything. It's just the from what I've researched, solar power pays for itself in 5-10 years depending on location. Meanwhile nuclear power has many externalities which are taxpayer-subsidized. It seems to me the reasons we haven't "gone solar" are not to do directly with cost, but of waiting until the technology is mature before investing gangbusters.
As for the dangers of storing electricity generated through solar energy, if a nuclear power plant can be run safely, couldn't an electrical storage plant also be run safely?
> Meanwhile nuclear power has many externalities which are taxpayer-subsidized.
And how many of those are taxpayer-imposed? Illogical and uninformed anti-nuclear activists prevent new reactors from being built, leaving us with increasingly dangerous old reactors or even more harmful coal plants. Political bullshit prevents breeder/burner reactors from making nuclear waste a manageable problem. Thorium gets no research money because it's useless for weapons.
So, please by patient with me, i'm not trying to make you look dumb or anything. It's just the from what I've researched, solar power pays for itself in 5-10 years depending on location. Meanwhile nuclear power has many externalities which are taxpayer-subsidized. It seems to me the reasons we haven't "gone solar" are not to do directly with cost, but of waiting until the technology is mature before investing gangbusters.
As for the dangers of storing electricity generated through solar energy, if a nuclear power plant can be run safely, couldn't an electrical storage plant also be run safely?