You are just very obtuse and frustrating and despite literally years of being given information on correct figures or how to find them, you refuse to do so. So I am just a bit frustrated.

Nope, still overlaps with fission.

You were grumbling about cost, and now it's land use? Solar can be placed on domestic roofs, SMRs not so much.

That's some harsh punishment. I thought she'd served her sentence?

Will be very happy. He can now make beer to go with his poop potatoes in the sequel.

No, you definitely weren't.

No, go and educate yourself. It might help you. It's not my job to educate those who seem incapable of keeping up with developments.

If you are claiming to use IPCC and from 3014 try using the words "according to wildy out out of date data" in your posts. It's something you do quite a lot - use wildly out of date data that is. Perhaps it's because recent data doesn't support your assertions.

Why on earth would you reference IPCC from 2014? With newer data it still doesn't match your assertions. So yes, still wrong and doubling down on your error.

You really could do with understanding what order of magnitude means. I read McKays work in it's entirety when published, thank you. It was relevant at the time, but time has moved on and it's out of date. It's still not 1W whichever way you try to argue. Update your figures. And 20% is on the low side for efficiency now, by the way..

You are backpedalling.now with the 'order of magnitude claim' and 100 is also of a similar order of magnitude as 50, so I could equally claim 100W.. McKay is from almost 20 years ago. He wasn't an expert in the area and no longer relevant.

Yes, it's an early draft because it was conveniently in PDF format to thumb through. Do you want me to go and find the final version and show you are still wrong? Why on earth are you using Wikipedia? Pathetic.

Time to find a meteor with extraterrestrial fossils in in the Arctic, then.

You claimed 10. 10 is incorrect. That's why people pick you up on stuff: you post easily disprovable nonsense.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FOD_Chapter06.pdf. LCOe Solar PV IPCC AR6, Table 6.8. LCOE. $/MWh (2019): Solar PV 41.7-111.6, Wind 28-64, Nuclear 89.3-91.9. LCOE (2030, projected): Solar PV, 38.6-100.8, Wind 21-41, Nuclear, 73.6-79.4. PV can apparently be cheaper than nuclear, overlap, or be a bit more expensive but it is not, as you assert, shown by IPCC to " all forms of electricity produced from the sun as more expensive than nuclear fission"

Evidence?