[Constantine XIII]

To put that in perspective, it takes roughly a decade to build a nuclear power plant. So that's ~500MW/year capacity for solar compared to ~100MW/year capacity for nuclear.

If what they are saying is true, they could make a good piece of money in the southwest.

If not, well, we'll never hear from them again. It's win/win for most of us. :P

[OmahaFields]

To put that in perspective, it takes roughly a decade to build a nuclear power plant. So that's ~500MW/year capacity for solar compared to ~100MW/year capacity for nuclear.

Nuclear construction is not limited to 100 MW/year. The new Texas reactors will result in 1356 * 2 MW in 9 years and that is only one site. That is from announcement to commercial. Actual construction might be say 5 years per plant and we could easily construct many plants at the same time with existing infrastructure. We could probably put more than 8000 MW of capacity on-line each year.

[Boiler Plate]

As you say it will either fail or succeed on it's own.

The only issue with alternative power sources is that they do not remove the need for primary power as the capacity to generate power on cloudy days, nighttime, or when there is either too much or too little wind.

They can however supplant peaking power plants which tend to be natural gas fed.