Reply #50: Part of the problem is insufficient installations.

[Ready4Change]

Starting off, I agree that PV doesn't have the immediate robustness of fossil fuels or nuclear.

OTOH, PV also needs to be implemented in a different manner than fossil or nuclear sources. Nuke plants are best as relatively large point sources of energy. PV works best when distributed. Rather than taking up acres and acres for fields of PV panels, they should instead be installed on the roofs of existing structures, like residential homes and factories, and then intertied into the existing power grid. No additional land costs. No reduced green space. Almost no nimby issues, except for HOA's who don't like the appearance of PV panels on roofs.

So, help me with a comparison?

A number was given above saying that a french-style nuclear plant installation was $4.1 billion. That same amount of money could install 1KW grid intertied PV systems on the roofs of 410,000 homes. If done in my home state of Maryland, which gets an average of 3 prime hours of sunlight a day, that's 1,230,000 KWhs a day. If we apply your estimate of 20% effectiveness, that's still 246,000 KWhs daily power production.

How does that compare with the power output of the french nuclear plant? How does it compare over time? Say, 10 years?

I'm just asking about power comparisons here. Not nimby issues, nor pollution/greenhouse emissions, or maintenace costs etc... Just power.

I suspect the power from such a PV system is a fraction of that from the nuclear plant, but I don't know what fraction? 1/2? 1/10?