What do you mean? 10 years ago all the nuclear proponents were arguing against renewables because they are too expensive supposedly. Now they are cheaper they make up new bogus arguments. Nuclear has had 70 years of massive subsidies (even excluding military spending) is still more expensive with lots of unsolved problems, but you say its the solution because renewables&storage are not reducing prices fast enough? Have a look at the price curves for solar, wind and batteries I can tell you only 3 of them are exponential price reduction curves and nuclear is not one of them.
Why did you wait? A poor country like Brazil is already 80% renewable for electricity. You cannot buy pure gasoline at the pump. It's mixed with a minimum of renewable ethanol, and that minimum has been going up every year for over a decade. Almost all cars run on pure ethanol and some consumers choose to never use petrol based fuel for their car. Diesel is not pure either. It's mixed with biodiesel by law and that percentage goes up every year.
If a poor country can achieve this, there is nothing stopping much richer countries.
You didn't lose a decade due to renewable capabilities. You lost a decade due electing the wrong politicians, influenced by big oil.
Carter installed solar panels on the White House. Reagan removed them two years later. It's nonsense like that that resulted in your lost decades. While other countries were already racing ahead.
Is it really renewable? (I don't know, but I assume biofuels are only viable with massive fertilizer subsidies. Also, I hope "renewable" doesn't mean "let's cut down the Amazon rainforest and wait 200 years for it to grow back".)
You get a new crop 2x a year as opposed to waiting 180 million years for new fossil fuels, so yeah, it's really renewable. As far as net carbon, I'd like to see the math but since plants take carbon out of the air it's far closer to carbon neutral than burning fossil fuels.
Cutting down the Amazon to power cars would indeed be foolish but the same folks protecting the Amazon are the same folks pushing renewables. Likewise, the current president turned a blind eye to deforestation while pushing for more fossil fuels. For the time being if you want to protect the Amazon it's the renewables folks you need to get behind.
If your target is 2030 that's not enough time to permit and construct a single conventional nuclear power plant in North America. The permitting process alone typically runs 5 years or more before ground is even broken on construction.
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.
Do you know what a capacity factor is? Do you understand how overprovisioning works and why we would also need it with nuclear power (at a much higher price)? Do you have any numbers to back up your once a month claim and 30% deficit or are you just making stuff up?
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.
