> Solar stops at night, slows down on cloudy days, and so on.
All of which is already accounted for, so you're double-counting
> Panels degrade and have to be replaced after 20 years or so.
Most of the ones I've seen have 25 year guarantees; historically they've lasted longer, but I don't know how much the manufacturing etc. has changed so I'm not sure how strongly to predict extra years of life beyond such guarantees.
> Non-hydro renewables only beat nuclear when you conveniently forget storage, which is insanely expensive, and when you look at nominal capacity, not actual production.
1) Hydro is a storage system as well as a source
2) Even with li-ion backing it's cost-comparable to nuclear, and li-ion is one of the more expensive PWh-scale options
3) The current pricing is for digging up rocks and applying enough chemistry to make them batteries; recycling is expected to be much cheaper once scaled up.
(I'll grant that recycling is an "if and when", if you like; but the other points stand without needing any support)
All of which is already accounted for, so you're double-counting
> Panels degrade and have to be replaced after 20 years or so.
Most of the ones I've seen have 25 year guarantees; historically they've lasted longer, but I don't know how much the manufacturing etc. has changed so I'm not sure how strongly to predict extra years of life beyond such guarantees.
> Non-hydro renewables only beat nuclear when you conveniently forget storage, which is insanely expensive, and when you look at nominal capacity, not actual production.
1) Hydro is a storage system as well as a source
2) Even with li-ion backing it's cost-comparable to nuclear, and li-ion is one of the more expensive PWh-scale options
3) The current pricing is for digging up rocks and applying enough chemistry to make them batteries; recycling is expected to be much cheaper once scaled up.
(I'll grant that recycling is an "if and when", if you like; but the other points stand without needing any support)