True. Anything given enough time, effort and money can be made more efficient. That's why all this money thrown at wind and solar has improved the technology. Money they refuse to throw at nuclear. From what I hear.

It's debunking that wind and solar are more energy efficient than nuclear. It's like in Simcity when you compare coal vs wind and solar. Coal is vastly superior.

Also, Nuscale? We weren't comparing to Nuscale. We were comparing to current best nuclear technology. Not what someone can make in their garage with one of these little modular reactors.

And I used the wrong word. You said renewable. So I replied with the same word. I meant sustainable. And it is.

And it is cheap. Cheaper than putting up a hundred thousand windmills to produce the same amount of power as one plant. Some plants are already there, could just be field and powered back up to save even more money (than constructing a new one).

But the cost to transport the blades and other pieces in a wind turbine kit (flat-bed truck fueled by Diesel). And I doubt very much you can recycle them also. If they break. They go in the landfill and stay there for a hundred years or so.

Or at the very least. I WAS right. But then technology improved and costs decreased. If that was the case, you could have saved a lot of time and just said that.

And then someone with even less time can come back in and show you that you're wrong. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-nuclear-energy

Nuclear is renewable. It's safe, and it produces vastly more electricity (cost-effective) than wind and solar. So maybe DYOR and support the clear winner.

That's completely wrong. It's cheaper because solar and wind produce vastly less electricity than nuclear. And nuclear is safe. Don't get it twisted.

And I thought they didn't like nuclear energy. They seem to only be promoting wind and solar projects lately. That's excellent news though.