[Swenrekcah]

If that already happened then that's great. It's the first I'm hearing about it but I don't work in the sector so that's fair.

Nevertheless nuclear energy is a steady and reliable source of large amounts of energy, just like coal and oil. By having a few of those, the grid operator can greatly decrease their need for grid-scale batteries, thus enabling more grids to deploy them faster, paving the way for more solar/wind.

This is not a competition between renewables and nuclear. They aren't enemies.

CO2 is the enemy, we must focus on that.

Point well taken about how long the nuclear projects take, that's why natural gas a bridge is important.

I want purely renewable energy just as much as you but I'm highly skeptical that it is possible or even desirable to build out all the capacity we need in just solar/wind/hydro in the short amount of time we have. Everything that helps, helps. Until the point where it doesn't and then that's the time to address that.

[pydry]

>This is not a competition between renewables and nuclear. They aren't enemies.

They kind of are. They are competing for limited investment and they are not complementary.

Nuclear power is not a "battery". It's an extraordinarily expensive way to produce a fixed amount of power whether it's needed or not.

You trade ~20% extra reliability for 3x the cost.

>I'm highly skeptical that it is possible or even desirable to build out all the capacity we need in just solar/wind/hydro in the short amount of time we have

Nothing can do it in the short amount of time that we have to save us from 2C.

Diverting limited resources to nuclear won't speed the transition up though, it'll slow it down.

[Swenrekcah]

I guess we just disagree then. I think we have plenty of resources to do both.

Government might better focus on clamping down on frivolous waste of resources such as cryptos (both waste of hardware, energy and most valuably talent).