Even if you could magically increase the number of nuclear reactors started before 2012 tenfold to keep up with wind and solar, you’d have to triple uranium mining overnight to fuel them for the first time.

Four points:

The profile of other is short spikes 5-100 hours a few times a year.

1 year of delay is equivalent to 20 years of exclusively using fossil fuels for “other”.

It’s not even obvious that adding nuclear reactors would reduce this because they’re so geographically and temporally inflexible. France has 63GW of nuclear capacity, <45GW of average load and 61GW of winter peak load with vast amounts of storage available via interconnect to hydro countries. They still use 5% gas on top of the rest of the “other” (which is about 10-25GW).

5% of other from gas adds about 20g CO2e/kg per kWh to the total. Less than the margin between different uranium sources.

Running 40% of the capacity 10% of the time puts your nuclear energy in the realm of $1-3/kWh. The list of ways of generating or storing 6% of your energy for <$1/kWh is basically endless.

That’s about 4-8TW of capacity worldwide. 1kg of uranium is good for fuelling about 750W of reactor on a 6 year fuel cycle. Loading those reactors would require digging up all of the known and assumed-to-exist uranium immediately.

Nuclear is an irrelevant distraction being pushed by those who know it will not work. You only have to glance at the policy history or donor base of the politicians pushing for it in Sweden, Canada, Australia, UK, Poland, etc etc or the media channels pushing it to see how obvious it is that it’s fossil fuel propaganda.

It is obviously obviously true that it’s a non-solution. It fails on every single metric. All of the talking points about alleged advantages are the opposite of the truth without exception.

“Baseload generator” isn’t a useful concept. And grid reliability (which is a useful concept) is thought about. It just doesn’t fit into a soundbite like winddon’tblowsundon’tshine.

Here’s an example of a full plan https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp

Or a simpler analysis on the same grid: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/

For reference, 5kWh home batteries currently retail for about $1300 so this would add <10% to the capital cost compared to recent nuclear projects. Pumped hydro is about half the price per capacity, but a bit more per watt. The former is dropping at 10-30% per year, so by the time a nuclear plant is finished, storage cost would be negligible.

Here’s a broad overview of a slightly simplified model https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z demonstrating similar is possible everywhere.

Even in the counterfactual case where the ~5% of “other” generation is only possible with fossil fuel, focusing on it is incredibly myopic because the resources spent on that 1% of global emissions could instead be used for the other 70% which isn’t from electricity and has different reliability constraints.

Look out! Communists are coming for your toothbrush. Better vote for harsher penalties for modifying stuff you bought. The DMCA still allows throwing away or disconnecting the computer locking you out of your heated seats.

Yes, many much easier ways. A propane tank for one. Wet, high CO2 methane is really hard to make explode.

Do get a CO detector though.

You can buy gas from anyone. Even make your own in a digester.

Your gas stove is not cryptographically locked to one gas company.

Because no human activity could ever have effects that accumulate at the macro scale. All that plastic has been successfully diluted and SO2, CO, CFCs and CO2 are all harmless once released.

We know they want their populace to think he’s dead and that they’re not trying to blame ukraine.

This actually narrows down the possibilities a fair bit.

Muh free speech! They’re forcing me to use whatever name someone wants rather than calling him n****r boy. *clutchest pearls*

What’s next? Not using pronouns to harrass and demean people intentionally?

I don’t think it’s sealed. The water table probably needs to be high enough for the water to not all vanish (and then salt the earth) or no pump would ever keep up.

Same reason lithium brine mining depletes fresh water somewhat in spite of only involving pumping brine.

Most uranium ore is lower energy density than low grade coal. Digging it up with diesel equipment after removing twice as much overburden with explosives in a coal powered country and then milling it with 10s to 100s of litres of sulfuric acid is incredibly dirty. All of the “representative” lifecycle studies use Ranger (which uses a specific much cleaner more expensive process on ore 30-70x as concentrated) or Cigar lake which is 1000-2500x as concentrated.

Even after that nuclear is still relatively low carbon, but about 10x a modern wind turbine.

Which are just as legit as all the studies that show how great oil, coal and gas are, and are peddled by the same peoe using the same methods.

Show me your study showing that the average time for a gen III or later plant is finished in 7.5 years from the time where sites are being assessed.

That’s a weird way of spelling “having a right wing government cancel most of their renewable rollout 10 years ago” ie. what’s happening in sweden now.

You’re deliberately trying to conflate the time from before-site-selection to a finished plant with the time for finishing a particular reactor after ground breaking. An analogy would be claiming the average time for a solar plant is three minutes because screwing one panel on takes that long.

Not every neutron capture causes fission. And throwing a random soup of fissile and fertile elements in a hole is how you get a meltdown or no reaction – they’re not fungible. Please stop digging your ignorance-hole deeper.

Maybe consider that PV panels aren’t kdentical and the ones built after the WESS are not the same? But there goes the nuance-allergy nuke shills have again.

Also this is all an incredibly stupid tangent in the first place, as renewables are renewable so long as they’re at least as recyclable as the nuclear plant. Yet again demonstrating the inability to push over your own straw man.

Now you’re also trying the condescending from a position of ignorance tactic on top of that. Stupid and ignorant or smug, pick one.

This is a fallacy called Texas sharpshooter. We’ll know if they will be recycled in 20 years, how can we verify this now? How can this be an argument of any value?

No, because there is a specific piece of legislation mandating it, a clear well costed industrial plan, and idle recycling facilities waiting for panels to finally wear out.

What you’ve done is the “nothing can ever start happening more than it is now” fallacy which nuke shills love to roll out.

Not understanding that bombarding Pu240 and Pu239 with neutrons produces different isotope ratios than U238 is a very good way of demonstrating that you actually understand reprocessing /s

Well no, that’s the thing. They’ve replaced moving away from fossil fuels now with promising they’re going to in 2045

Incredibly well quantified emissions that are in total lower than the emissions from mining uranium (except for two or three cherry picked mines which are supposed to be representative), or the emissions from building and decomissioning a nuke if you take real lifetimes and load factors.

You’ve now switched from closed cycle to using the dregs via reprocessing. Entirely unrelated concepts (and reprocessing is also ecologically awful and uneconomical in addition to not meaningfully reducing mining).

In reality all solar panels in large parts of europe built since 2015 will be recycled.

This happen routinely even in non breeder reactors, industrial nuclear nuclear reprocessing is a thing and many reactors in the world run on MOX fuel with plutonium extracted from spent LWR fuel. You only need a breeding ratio higher than 1 because otherwise fissile content will keep diminishing. Arguably there’s no more base research needed, both breeding and nuclear reprocessing are time tested process. What we need is industrial scale up, which is a little bit further than a proof of concept

A soup of random plutonium isotopes isn’t usable for MOX. MOX-2 has never happened.

You cannot even keep your bizarre straw man tangent straight.

Good thing your straw man isn’t what is being suggested by anyone anywhere.