Yeah, yeah, I heard all this 10 years ago. I imagine you’ll be saying the same thing in 2030 when coal usage will be about 35% of global electricity.
I'm not sure I follow you here. It takes 12+ years to permit and construct a nuclear power plant in North America. This isn't a matter of opinion but of observed reality. They take on average 7 years to build with a 5+ year long permitting process before ground is broken. So unless you're proposing the government imminent domain a bunch of reactors into existence I don't understand what we're even talking about?
No, we can build double the capacity if we build wind and solar now and the wind and solar will reduce or CO2 emissions while the nuclear plant is still in the planning/building phase, why should we build nuclear?
Do you have an actual argument? Offshore wind has a capacity factor of 60% that is close to nuclear power plants. If you locally distribute your generation, the chances of power falling to zero goes to zero.
I'm sure we can deal with a 30% electricity deficit that happens randomly with a few days notice. We can shut down unimportant things like residential power. No one really needs lightbulbs every day of the month after all.
Maybe not. Between NIMBY groups and the political polarization around climate change I think we can all pretty vividly imagine what Twitter would look like 60 seconds after draft legislation to this effect was proposed.