Solar and wind are being deployed in enormous quantities. The technology is mature and marching up the exponential portion of the adoption S-curve. Nuclear isn’t. This isn’t even a value judgement: it’s just a statement on the incredible advantages of a technology that can be produced in factories, vs one that currently can’t.
> Solar and wind are being deployed in enormous quantities.
Yes, but that's not what's concerning the skeptics anymore, especially for solar (thankfully - the cost reductions and efficiency gains have been great). Aside from the well known geographical variance, I think the biggest legitimate concern is intermittence.
Let me try to turn that into a decent question: What variable other than energy output is most useful in order to compare energy sources? For context, all I've seen when it comes to intermittence is flame war with weak arguments thrown from both sides of the debate, i.e. "intermittence is not a problem at all, we just need batteries" to "intermittent sources are worth a fraction of an equivalent baseload source".
Honestly, I've not been convinced of either side, and (if I'm not alone in that sentiment), it may be a problem of education and communication.
Intermittence is a solved problem with storage, and storage is being deployed at an absolutely massive scale on grids that are market-driven for profits, namely Texas.
