You know why to base the future on renewals and nuclear only?

Steemitters, why-o-why is Europe in such a rush reducing CO2 these years and pushing ancient sun and wind generators that have multifold investmentcosts and come it a million different generators that are erratic and are discontinuous??

That is what The Netherlands and France do at the moment and it gives no advantage in economics, reducing substantial CO2.

The future will be nuclear ALONE, only when solar has some economic advantage market wise (without subsidies) or has some power exchange possibilities it can be a useful addition. The price of investment in solar and wind is way to high and the technology has it own barrage of problems with pollution, large energy losses in transport, and discontinuity .

In the present political environment in Green dominated Europe, nuclear fusion is the future but we spend Billions on outdated solar and wind generators that last possibly just 10 years before they need replacement again... That is a drain on the economics of nuclear fusion research and investments. But nuclear is virtual CO2 free ,even better than solar and wind.

It is economical nonsense to fill the gaps in solar and wind production currently, we are on the brink of switching on the first MSR and nuclear should always be base-load and windmills may disappear in the history books as the biggest failure of our time, so WHY do we keep on plunging so much taxmoney into these moneypits?

Electricity production should be 100% by nuclear fission of Th and fusion of Molten Salt! It is the cheapest way for the next 2000 year at least.

The so-called holes in the ozone nobody talks about, the acid rains were a hype, now the CO2 it the hype scapegoat of the leftwing greenhatters having taxmoney burning in their pockets!

Reality check please!