[koffiezet]

It's never an "or" thing, it's an "and" thing, we need both. The more renewable we have, the better, but for a base-load it's hard to have this everywhere and batteries are far from an ideal solution. We don't need nuclear to replace wind/solar, we need it to replace the oil/coal/gas which we can't seem to get rid of for that base-load.

And Texas has a lot of sun during moments with peak usage (aircos) - so it you'd have to be an absolute moron not to see the advantages there, but for example in Germany they're going backwards here, they use coal and gas to replace nuclear - in a time where our primary focus should be on producing as little CO2 as possible - which is just another level of stupidity.

[LightG]

How about the world installs such an excess of solar/wind/renewable that the even the lowest variable takes care of the base-load?

I don't know ... call me suspicious ... but having Ukraine and and Russia fighting in amongst a nuclear reactor gives me the willies.

Something previously unthinkable. Until the unthinkable becomes thunk.

You don't know what's around the corner. And those in support of nuclear have such a hard-on about it that they're starting to sound like the crypto cult. I'm not convinced.

[macintux]

> And those in support of nuclear have such a hard-on about it that they're starting to sound like the crypto cult.

Please don't. There are plenty of valid reasons to support more nuclear power, there are plenty of valid reasons to oppose it, but there are no good reasons to go ad hominem.

[LightG]

Come on. You have to get some body blows in occasionally.

Ok, apologies ...