> And that solar is the most expensive way of producing power per kWh
This is utter bollocks. Solar is amazingly cheap today, per kWh produced. In the best places, it's around $0.013/kWh. Nuclear can't even meet that if you totally discount all capital and financing costs.
With all due respect, that's a pretty bullshit metric. Most of the world's population does not live where solar works best, so you'll get only fractional output and much higher price to performance.
Your response is without merit. Yes, most people don't live in places with the best solar resource. But the cost of solar I gave there is so cheap (like, a factor of 10 cheaper than new nuclear) that one could be 2-3x more expensive than that and still not be the most expensive source of electricity per kWh.
No, it's not with subsidies. Are you quoting RESIDENTIAL solar there? I was talking about utility-scale solar, which is the relevant thing to compare against nuclear.
This is utter bollocks. Solar is amazingly cheap today, per kWh produced. In the best places, it's around $0.013/kWh. Nuclear can't even meet that if you totally discount all capital and financing costs.