It would only take 0.6 percent of total US land mass covered in solar to power the entire country (about 100 miles by 100 miles). The batteries to back that energy production would only be about 1 square mile. That doesn't take into account residential rooftop solar already producing. Nor wind turbine parks in the middle of nowhere that contribute to farmer and rancher incomes. Offshore wind can be sited anywhere along the costs outside of shipping lanes, far enough off in the distance to not be seen but close enough to keep transmission costs reasonable. We are awash in clean, renewable energy.
To your point about the developing world, India is aggressively deploying solar, and is 4 years ahead of its solar capacity targets.
Solar and wind are ramping on curves somewhere between linear and exponential. They can be turned up in months, not years. They can be sited almost anywhere. They are what is going to win the day.
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/has-us-nuclear-powe...
https://blog.ucsusa.org/mike-jacobs/solar-vs-nuclear
"In comparison with nuclear, the amount of solar power built in 2016, taking into account how many hours each can operate each day, is the equivalent of more than 3 new nuclear plants.
To dive in a little deeper: let’s use a 25 percent capacity factor for new solar, making the 14,626 MW installed equivalent to 3,650 MW of theoretically perfectly running nuclear plants. The Westinghouse AP 1000 units under construction for the last 7-10+ years produce about 1,100 MW. So, in one year, solar additions were equal to what takes more than 7 years to build. The difference in speed of deployment is why UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) is clear that nuclear power isn’t a near-term climate solution."
So if you're not going to take my (rando HN poster's) word for it, the Union of Concerned Scientists seems somewhat reputable.
Also because of the way the Navy works their reactors are less bespoke for each ship than traditional land based reactors - and better fit the mass production model. This is something that could scale.
1. http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%2...
Wind farms go great on agricultural farms - they tend to have wide open spaces, and the actual footprint of a tower can have minor impact upon the productivity of the field.
Solar generation goes great on both residential and in particular - commercial buildings, over the tops of parking lots, etc - which has the dual effect of producing power and reducing the heating of the underlying building/parked cars (great for reducing the need for air conditioning)
Your average suburban home has enough roof area to produce either all of, or a significant fraction of, it's own energy for a moderate household.
Marginal-use land (hilly areas), coastal areas, and off-shore are also generally good areas for windfarms too.
Elon Musk begs to differ. Here's something he said: “If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said at at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.” https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-...
something like an area the size of the US to power the world, per Steven Pinker
Not to slag on Pinker, but Musk has proved himself to be a hell of a lot better visionary in the real world than most anyone else, and that includes pop authors.
Somewhere else I saw a claim of 0.6% of US land area needed for US power needs. Even if it's 1%, no BFD. Let's assume that many areas of the world don't have as good solar irradiance as the USA. So maybe it's 2% in some other places. Still, no BFD.
IMO the biggest problem with current nuclear is that it's run by utility companies. Those places aren't staffed by the world's brightest bulbs (heh heh). Allowing morons like that to build and manage nuclear plants is akin to allowing toddlers to play with live hand grenades. Most of the time they don't pull the pin, but when they do the results aren't pretty.
PV solar is simplicity itself. No moving parts. Linear economies of scale: 2x the panels means 2x the cost and 2x the power.
OTOH Southern Co. is now saying that the two nuclear reactors they are trying to complete will cost more than $25 billion. https://www.myajc.com/business/southern-says-vogtle-costs-ex... Oops.