Even taking the different average capacity factors into account, the renewables would still produce more electricity each year than Hinkley Point C.

The case against new nuclear is simple: they take too long and cost too much money. HPC got the go-ahead based on EDF bearing the brunt of the risk, but if we could have persuaded French taxpayers to subsidise new UK offshore wind it would have made much more sense for us to do that instead.

The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny. At least Nuclear is consistent.

> The case against wind and solar is that it only works when it is windy or sunny.

It is 2026 and "solar" can for a while now be read as "solar with battery storage". Similar, grid-level storage for any other intermittent power generation method.

We all know this, you included. This tired and childish talking point that "solar only works when it is sunny" is boring and increasingly at odds with observed reality of these power systems as they are now rapidly being built out.

You think Solar + Batteries is equivalent to a nuclear power plant? What would the footprint be for equivalent solar power production?

Already answered by parent https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48477998 Not equivalent, more power and faster.

Yeah, but he's wrong? Solar + battery requires 50-70x more land than the equivalent nuclear plant, according to google.

You think that he's wrong about the same money getting more ROI if invested in Solar + battery because ... "it needs more land"?

This is not just incorrect, it's nonsensical, non-sequitur. These comments with perpetually moving goalposts are not serious.

This was the question you chose to respond to:

You think Solar + Batteries is equivalent to a nuclear power plant? What would the footprint be for equivalent solar power production?

I'm not sure how me saying "50-70x more area" is a non-sequitur.

> The question that I asked is an irrelevant derailing, but I'm not sure how it is a non-sequitur.

OK buddy, you do you.