Here are a couple links from my comment history, the first is a comparison of KW costs, and the second is an overview of what the Chinese are doing.
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u... https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
I've repeatedly posted hard facts on this board and few people bother to do much research at all, overwhelmingly posting puff pieces and data which is obviously wrong (aka nameplate install/$, average capacity factors (because average doesn't tell you the worse case, which is required for a reliable grid)) and a bunch of other things that get hand waved away by "renewable" supporters, like the fact that in most places with a lot of "renewables" its actually 50+ year old hydro and not wind/solar providing the energy. Or that places with a lot of wind/solar are basically green washing their natural gas usage (like Germans are suddenly discovering).
edit: And to be clear, did you down vote the parent comment too, which states as fact something that is provably wrong (that nukes are more expensive than wind/solar, note the vox article which points out they were cheaper than natural gas plants at one point.), but commonly accepted, or did you let your own personal bias decide the misinformation he was repeating sounded correct?
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme811/node/682 “Minus field losses, the typical average overall efficiency of solar trough thermal plants is around 15-20%”. Your first sentence has an implicit contradiction! PV has efficiency of say 20%. I get that you are thinking about thermal storage, but the only sensible argument is overall economic costs, which you seem to be explicitly arguing against.
> I posted elsewhere (and was downvoted) for posting one of the many studies
If you have links explaining your position, I think always add them.
I strongly suspect you are mistaken in your reasoning about why you are getting downvoted. I’m not sure how to help you correctly guess why people downvote (sometimes their reasons are opaque), but I can tell you my own in this case:
I think your core point is interesting. However overall your comment across to me as waffling and mixing in opinionated misinformation and fact. Perhaps make one major point, with a modicum of supporting information. Avoid random tangents. Your comment here in particular appears to me to be mish-mashing implicit economic arguments with other issues.