> I looked, and what I've found tells me that you make a false claim. Your lack of sources is just as telling.

God... so frustrating dealing with dumbasses that don't know even the most basic shit about energy production and cost. Not sure if you are just trolling. But here goes. Here are costs by different sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Costs will vary between country. But here is cost e.g. for France. Nuclear EPR is 100 euro/MWh. Solar farms is 43.24 euro/MWh.

Next, the UK. Nuclear PWR is 93-121 pounds/MWh. Onshore wind 47-76 pounds/MWh. Solar 71-94 pounds/MWh.

How about the US. Advanced Nuclear 71-92 dollars/MWh. Onshore Wind 28 to 62 dollars/MWh. Solar 29 to 48 dollars/MWh.

Here are the estimates from British BEIS: https://www.carbonbrief.org/wind-and-solar-are-30-50-cheaper...

> Solar and wind power have their merits, but they are not the ultimate solution to clean power problem.

Said nobody ever. Solar and wind are dirty cheap hence any clean energy system will have to try to use as much of these as possible to save money where possible. We can supplement with geothermal, hydropower, biomass, power-to-gas, compress air storage, flow batteries, metal powder combustion, and even SMR with molten salt thermal energy storage.

Your own sources, if you dig into them, conveniently split generation costs (of which Lazard's cited report says that wind and solar generation is competitive only when subsidized by the US government) with storage costs. If you factor storage costs into the equation, your economy would look way different. Lazard has a report on storage costs too.

I'm withdrawing from further discussion due to your petty manner to use insults instead of arguments.

Insults are there because you said I made false claims and lacked sources. That is basically calling me a liar.

The sources was easy to look up. Claiming storage costs must be included is moving the goalpost.

Gas power plant plus wind is e.g. a perfectly valid choice which cause significant CO2 reductions, and which is entirely cost competitive. Biomass is another viable choice.

Many places hydro plus wind and solar is a viable choice.

For many using you EV will provide you with storage for a very low cost. With Tesla’s million mile battery, there is minimal cost to using EV battery cycles to power your house when the sun doesn’t shine.

Point is, there are tons options and choices and so claiming wind and solar must be paired with storage is disingenuous.