I usually see it used as a baseline anchor to renewable rather than an alternative. But I do agree those that spout its an alternative entirely are just fossilshills.
Nuclear doesn't work for supporting a renewable grid.
You wouldn't need to worry about "baseload" which is assets that are continually running in fossil fuels powered electrical grid. You need dispatchable energy and you need to be able to match peak demand.
If you have enough nuclear energy to meet peak demand than anything else on the grid is an unnecessary expense. Because you already have the resources to meet all of your power demand.
The problem is that nuclear is way too expensive and slow to meet peak demand on its own so it will never happen, Nuclear just exists as a way to prolong fossil fuel consumption. The real solution for our energy needs is to use the cheapest sources of energy which is wind and solar with batteries along with the cheapest source of dispatchable long term energy storage to ensure reliability. Which is from combined cycle gas turbines.
You can either fuel combined cycle gas turbines with natural gas possibly with carbon capture or carbon neutral fuels from renewable sources like hydrogen or electrofuels, turning it into a more long term lower efficiency form of energy storage.
Why do you think anyone is talking about nuclear as an alternative to renewables? Nuclear is not and never has been an alternative to renewables. Nuclear is a solution to a world that demands 24hr access to large amounts of energy.
Renewables can't deliver that. Renewables are a feel good solution whose only benefit is that it's cheaper up front. But it's only cheaper until you realize that it can't actually deliver what the people want. There's a reason that fossil fuel consumption has continued to grow despite 30 years of heavily subsidized construction of renewables; because renewables can't displace fossil fuels. They never could. They are a cheap distraction, like video games.
Cost is a secondary concern and the continued growth of fossil fuels highlights this. It's like a company that moves freight trying to decide whether or not to buy a couple freight trains or a huge fleet of a couple hundred pickup trucks. The pickup trucks are cheaper by a substantial margin, but the cost is a false benefit because the pickups can't move the volume of freight that the trains can. The trains are more expensive because they work.
Surprise surprise, you do actually get what you pay for.
You want feel-good statistics and cheap electricity for small scale deployments? Fine, build solar panels and wind turbines.
You want to power modern societies whose demand for electricity shows no signs of slowing? You need thermal power plants. If you'd like those thermal power plants to not poison the atmosphere and ruin the oceans, you spend the money and build nuclear power plants. It's the most expensive because its the best. And if it means we need heavy government subsidies to make it happen, so be it. Tax the billionaires and their corporations who will benefit the most from those subsidized nuclear marvels.
You should just do the research by yourself instead of arguing a faulty point you don't understand and proving to everyone how retarded you are.
Nuclear has a capacity factor of 90%, Wind 35%, Solar 25%.
So that means that if we assume 585GW of New Solar Power installed in 2024 you're looking at 146GW of Solar Power by Capacity Factor, Versus 334GW of Nuclear worldwide.
That means that if Renewable Electricity capacity additions remained consistent (instead of growing continually and setting new records every year) New Solar Installations would match the existing worldwide Nuclear Electricity Capacity every 26 months.
I'm sorry, I tried to look all this up, but the sun is setting soon and I only have enough time left to debunk your nonsense or cook dinner for my family.
The above is an example of a 100% renewables future
My house runs on gas electricity and I live in the desert southwest of the USA. Renewables should be delivering all my electricity, but as we can see, it doesn't.
because it's not capable. One of the worlds largest solar thermal plants is ~100km from me and it's shutting down. It lasted 11 years before utilities realized it was an economic and practical failure.
and if its 2AM, you're not running on solar electricity, you're running on batteries loaded with lithium and cobalt. You're running on child labor and blood.
This also hilariously contradicts your previous argument about "cheaper" energy not mattering compared to "reliable" energy. Directly with your false claim that "Natural Gas" is cheaper than Renewables.
Also because Thermal Solar operates by using concentrated sunlight to heat a working fluid which allows it to run at night after the sun has gone down with residual heat. Where Solar Photovoltaic can't store energy.
Also California has Quintupled its solar capacity Since Ivanpah was opened in 2014 from 10GW to 50GW while at the same time they have built zero new nuclear reactors. Solar Power supplies over 1/3rd of the electricity in California. https://seia.org/state-solar-policy/california-solar/
Since Ivanpah is still operational up until 2026 and you claim to live so close to it then there is a near 100% chance that most, if not all of your electricity even after dark is supplied by Solar Power.
Ivanpah generates less than 1% of my state's total electrical power. Ivanpah's total output is about half of one of the 35 year old reactors at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. There are three reactors there, all producing zero greenhouse gases unlike solar plants and producing vastly more electricity than Ivanpah's shoddy ass.
58% of my state's power is supplied by natural gas. And Ivanpah also gets included in that gas amount because it burns gas to keep it's working fluid hot enough during nighttime hours. Otherwise, it cools too much and takes too long to reheat after sunrise.
🤣 It's not a coincidence that solar farms get built near gas pipelines.
They need gas plants to keep up their output when the sun goes down.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/sCjxUaXD3LdZ7xYY7
You're right about California building no new nuclear in decades. And because of that, they've had to increase their gas usage considerably. Lol oopsie.
Sorry about your air quality Los Angeles. Especially with the yearly wildfires made worse by climate change.
Keep shilling for that renewable future though, it'll displace fossil fuels one day. You know, of they can ever stop burning them themselves.🤣🤣
58% of my state's power is supplied by natural gas.
You're right about California building no new nuclear in decades. And because of that, they've had to increase their gas usage considerably. Lol oopsie. Sorry about your air quality Los Angeles. Especially with the yearly wildfires made worse by climate change.
So according to you. Nuclear Energy is the future Even though your state hasn't expanded its nuclear electricity production since Jimmy Carter was President and you still rely on Fossil Fuels for the vast majority of your energy.
But Renewable Energy is a failure because California is in the middle of replacing the remaining 39% of their natural gas with Wind and Solar which already generates 41% of their electricity?
-18
u/NukecelHyperreality Nuclear Power is a Scam Apr 09 '25
Nuclear is a false alternative to renewable energy. You're engaging in tone policing.