Originally Posted by
CrimsonEclipse
So is whining.
Oooh boy, where do we start on this one. It's like talking to a child.
Here, have some pearls:
Not to cherry pick, but i don't have the time nor crayons to explain to you how silly you sound.
Economically viable: Price per kilowatt hour over the life of the system. (mind blown, right?)
Solar/Wind/Battery/DC power transmission wins every time. It's not even close.
Nukes are economically viable as long as you take all of the laws (i.e. safety) out of the system.
Yeah... keep your "cheap" nukes....
You comparing H2, a fuel, to conventional (chemical) batteries, to capacitors.
They are all VERY different systems, please return when you learn about each of them on the most basic level.
The rest is just babbling....
Frankly, I'm surprised you can dress yourself.
Solar is cheaper only because it does not include storage costs. If you want to go with solar and wind, then solving climate change is completely off the table.
There are is only one option for zero emissions, nuclear and biofuel generated from waste heat.
Solar and wind require massive amounts of coal and natural gas to power through the production troughs. This is proven by Germany, whom is now caught in a vicious cycle, where more and more coal is required to keep their grid running. They have missed every single emissions target.