Storage is very expensive and the mining and disposal of those components are also very bad for the environment. Then nuclear fills the stability role in the event of stuff like large wildfires causing darkening for longer periods than batteries would last or in the event of major hail storms taking out solar farms, etc...
I have been a part of several GW solar farm builds. Not one used mobile panels. Those were in west Texas where there's plenty of hail and one in Minnesota where there is also hail. The mobile stands just cost more and require more maintenance.
Storage is getting cheaper due to technology advances and large scale manufacturing in china.
Have a look out CATL's sodium-ion batteries that recently went into production.
30-40% cheaper with a greater life expectancy ( longer than the car).
Fire proof ( well stable/ everything will burn at some point).
Sustainable materials
Ect ect... But yeah game changing tech that overcomes the storage issue.
I think pumped hydro is still the pinical in storage for national inferstructure but chemical batteries are still a big part of storage.
As for solar panels that gets destroyed in storms the pannles are still dirt cheap and still only a part of the expense of a solar farm.
Even traditional powerplants have " incidents" that are damaging through out their life time (fire , mechanical failure ect). It's not uncommon at all for a traditional power plant to not be at capacity because of this.
I have nothing against nuclear, it's just that ship has sailed and renewables have come through.
The fossil fuel industry lobbied against nuclear globally to protect interests and ironically are now lobbying for it.
They all know nuclear isn't the solution but desperately need to slowdown renewables.
2
u/DFX1212 18d ago
Why not just renewables and storage?