Allow nuclear to be used as a wedge for the fossil fuel propaganda machine to keep their emissions going, since building nuclear takes decades and costs far more than renewables, displacing potential investment in renewables? Not a chance in hell
You are literally doing what you claim to decry. Anti-nuclear means you are supporting fossil fuels. No one except people whose trigger word is “nuclear” thinks we should build fossil fuel power plants. The reality is that every time a nuclear powerplant is decommissioned it’s not replaced by wind/solar, its replaced by fossil fuel plants. If you don’t care about the environment at least be honest, since i really doubt you are being paid by the fossil fuel industry, no need to push their anti-nuclear propaganda.
Since the 90’s almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90’s then all the surrounding states wouldn’t be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn’t need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.
We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.
We are constantly expanding the amount of energy we use. Right now we build lots of solar/wind, but also still build a magnitude more fossil fuel power plants (by generation capacity). Since we are still building power plants, in addition to solar/wind it’s obvious that solar wind cannot replace the need for power plants, otherwise we wouldn’t be building power plants at all. So if we do need to build power plants, the only comparable non-fossil fuel option would be nuclear reactors.
We are constantly expanding the amount of energy we use. Right now we build lots of solar/wind, but also still build a magnitude more fossil fuel power plants (by generation capacity). Since we are still building power plants, in addition to solar/wind it’s obvious that solar wind cannot replace the need for power plants, otherwise we wouldn’t be building power plants at all. So if we do need to build power plants, the only comparable non-fossil fuel option would be nuclear reactors.
I am talking about the reality here. We obviously cannot build enough solar/wind at this moment to replace the base-load generation that we have, otherwise we would, so I guess to answer your question YES there is apparently an upper limit we can build these things. What else are you looking for?
Since the 90’s almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90’s then all the surrounding states wouldn’t be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn’t need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.
The 90’s are irrelevant when it comes to discussing renewables. The price has dropped by 99% since then. It’s literally not even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, we would probably have been in a better place if we built nuclear in the past. Hindsight and everything. Does that mean it’s wise to do public investment in nuclear today? Not even a little bit.
We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.
You are literally doing what you claim to decry. Anti-nuclear means you are supporting fossil fuels. No one except people whose trigger word is “nuclear” thinks we should build fossil fuel power plants. The reality is that every time a nuclear powerplant is decommissioned it’s not replaced by wind/solar, its replaced by fossil fuel plants. If you don’t care about the environment at least be honest, since i really doubt you are being paid by the fossil fuel industry, no need to push their anti-nuclear propaganda.
I’m not anti-nuclear, as is beyond clear from the post I wrote.
I even spelled out in my post that we should keep the ones that exist running.
But you realize that if you don’t build new nuclear plants, you are going to get fossil fuel plants instead right?
Look at this: https://cleanenergy.illinois.gov/tracking-illinois-progress/electricity-generation-mix.html
Since the 90’s almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90’s then all the surrounding states wouldn’t be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn’t need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.
We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.
Not my state, we decommissioned our coal plants and are probably going to be 100% renewable by 2030
Care to expand on this?
The grid needs consistent power. We can power the grid by solar and wind only , but don’t expect 120V when you plug into the wall socket.
Why is that?
We are constantly expanding the amount of energy we use. Right now we build lots of solar/wind, but also still build a magnitude more fossil fuel power plants (by generation capacity). Since we are still building power plants, in addition to solar/wind it’s obvious that solar wind cannot replace the need for power plants, otherwise we wouldn’t be building power plants at all. So if we do need to build power plants, the only comparable non-fossil fuel option would be nuclear reactors.
Is there some kind of upper limit on how much wind/solar/storage we can build out that I’m unaware of?
There is no limit to the amount of nuclear reactors we could build, but that is neither here nor there.
You:
I’m asking you to back this assertion up. If you can’t, just admit that rather than trying to deflect.
I am talking about the reality here. We obviously cannot build enough solar/wind at this moment to replace the base-load generation that we have, otherwise we would, so I guess to answer your question YES there is apparently an upper limit we can build these things. What else are you looking for?
deleted by creator
The 90’s are irrelevant when it comes to discussing renewables. The price has dropped by 99% since then. It’s literally not even in the same ballpark.
Yeah, we would probably have been in a better place if we built nuclear in the past. Hindsight and everything. Does that mean it’s wise to do public investment in nuclear today? Not even a little bit.
Zero grounds for this being the case.
Can you point to a single instance of a power plant being decommissioned and replaced with renewables?
That’s not how grids work and I think you know it