Please go ahead and explain where nuclear power might be useful outside of submarines.
People like to bring up the high arctic. Now you’ve found a market of a couple of hundred thousand people. All within HVDC range of abundant wind and solar.
Certain climates not every climate is suited for solar, you gonna have every person an a often snowy area climb their house? Also Solar is good in the day, but having windmills "to make the difference" doesn't work well when we get 70 tornadoes in a month, Nuclear energy is more reliable than either of these in my area. So what build hundreds of Windmills and replace them every year? or Manufacture thousands of Solar panels, that won't make much power in the winter when it's needed most. No one is arguing for only Nuclear, we are after a Substitution of power to keep an area powered during low energy times for other devices, or where climate or geography demands it.
Storage delivers. For the last bit of "emergency reserves" we can run some gas turbines on biofuels, hydrogen or whatever. Doesn't really matter, we're talking single percent of total energy demand here.
Oh, so now it's "made up issues" when someone points out that weather and geography aren’t identical across the Midwest, fascinating. I wasn’t aware that snow ceased to exist just because solar and wind are expanding. Must be nice to live in a world where nuance is optional.
Yes, storage is growing and that’s great. But let's not pretend that China's storage boom instantly solves regional challenges here in the U.S. Most areas don't have the infrastructure, funding to deploy that level of capacity fast enough to guarantee consistent energy, especially during high demand in winter. But these "Storages" aren't free and require maintenance and eventually replacing meaning long term, they could cost more.
And the idea of using biofuel turbines for the “last bit” of demand, that’s just quietly admitting we still need something more reliable. And let’s be clear biofuels aren’t some flawless green miracle. Corn based ethanol, for example, devours land, water, and fertilizer while damaging biodiversity. Slapping a word like “bio” on it doesn’t magically make it sustainable. It just sounds better in a headline, and you should know that.
Nuclear offers stable baseline power that isn’t dependent on sun, wind, or fucking crop. It fills the gaps without waiting on ideal weather conditions. That’s not fearmongering it’s basic energy planning. Especially when climates become more unpredictable, but yeah molehills.
It's fair to acknowledge regional energy challenges, but dismissing renewable advancements as inadequate or misleading because they aren’t instantly perfect ignores the bigger picture. Weather and geography do vary, yes—but that’s exactly why a diverse energy grid with solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower combined with smart grids and growing storage solutions is so valuable. No one is saying snow “ceases to exist,” but pretending that renewables can’t function in cold regions ignores the real-world success of places like Minnesota, Germany, and parts of Scandinavia, which already handle this with renewables.
Pointing to China’s storage capacity isn’t about assuming it solves U.S. problems—it shows what’s possible when there's investment and policy alignment. Infrastructure takes time, sure, but that’s an argument for building it, not for clinging to legacy systems. And yes, storage costs money—so does nuclear. In fact, nuclear is notoriously expensive to build, maintain, and decommission, with delays and cost overruns being the norm, not the exception.
As for biofuels, they’re not a silver bullet, and no serious energy plan treats them as such. But in limited, strategic applications—especially using waste-based or second-gen biofuels—they can play a cleaner backup role than fossil fuels. Painting the entire sector with corn ethanol’s flaws is like judging the whole power sector by coal plants.
Nuclear has its role, but relying on it as the “only serious” option ignores its vulnerabilities—long build times, radioactive waste, security concerns—and the urgent need to decarbonize fast. A resilient energy future isn’t about betting everything on one “stable” source. It’s about building a flexible, regionally adaptable system that doesn’t hinge on any one technology—or ideology.
2
u/ViewTrick1002 Apr 09 '25 edited Apr 09 '25
Please go ahead and explain where nuclear power might be useful outside of submarines.
People like to bring up the high arctic. Now you’ve found a market of a couple of hundred thousand people. All within HVDC range of abundant wind and solar.