You've got $30B to spend and a climate crisis. Nuclear or solar?

> In order to replace the two nuclear plants while the sun is down, the batteries would need to replicate two 1.117 GW power sources for 16 hours. The total energy storage capacity would be 39.3 GWh, after we add an extra 10% for safe measure.

I think this is the first time I've seen an analysis that includes the costs of the batteries. For comparison, the world's biggest battery, being built next year, will act as a 1.200 GW power source, although "The company is yet to decide the storage capacity, which will determine how many hours it can run."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/05/world...

On that note for anyone interested in the economics(and working in general) of nuclear energy check out the Illinois Energy youtube channel.

Here's a quiz video of theirs: https://youtu.be/c1QmB5bW_WQ?t=41

Fission energy all the way.

Solar.

While solar will probably have some end of life issues, I don't they will be near as lethal and expensive as nuclear.

Plus the inevitable cost overruns on the front end.