it's true. somewhat.
I mean the energy of the nuclear station stays constant. however the peak power of the solar panels will be higher. but I doubt that the solar panels will still be creating less energy over a longer period of time. unless you build both inside a desert and there you would have other problems like the sand which affects the lifetime of your panels, etc..
btw. i'm against nuclear and non renewable energy, however I think its hard to actually replace ever "bad" energy in the next 10-20 years. we will need a longer time for that. especially since building renewable energy plants fast isn't good for our environment either.
The peak power of solar panels is not higher today.
The highest capacity US nuclear power plant can out-produce the best utility scale solar installation by 10 fold, with both at max capacity, on an equal amount of land.
no with peak power i mean. full sun no cloud the whole day, etc. perfect things wheater for solar energy.
However this barely (never) happens.
so the energy of the panel changes throughout the day. however highest (possible) peak of solar could definitly be higher than a nuclear power plant (anywhere in the world) on an equal amount of land.
nothing to do with today. just a "what would happen on a perfect day". peak vs peak.
also peak of a nuclear power plant could be raised by human and solar panel peak is barely measurable, since there are a hugh amount of factors that could change it.
How can you be against nuclear when you don't even understand the level of output of a nuclear plant? You also suggest that nuclear is mature, but that doesn't mean there aren't new reactor designs being developed.
Solar is also mature by your lame definition of just being around for a long time. In fact, solar has been around longer than nuclear in that regard so it must be more mature then. /s
What's wrong with non-renewable? That simply means it won't last forever. Is it really important that whatever energy generation we use can be repeatedly maintained and operated forever? I don't see any problem in making the most of the Earth's uranium resources while it's cheap enough. In the worst case, we'll just have to stop doing that later rather than sooner.
btw. i'm against nuclear and non renewable energy, however I think its hard to actually replace ever "bad" energy in the next 10-20 years. we will need a longer time for that. especially since building renewable energy plants fast isn't good for our environment either.