Well – that is so sad. Here I thought we both agreed that nuclear was going to be an important part of the future energy mix, and just disagreed on the percentage of nuclear (especially in the USA).

Oh well – I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I will continue to advocate for increased nuclear power and you can keep doing whatever it is you do.

Correcting your bullshit and being ignored…

Oh well – I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

You’re just flat-out wrong. Read the fucking WNA report.

BBD says “No, we are not. ”

Well – that is so sad. Here I thought we both agreed that nuclear was going to be an important part of the future energy mix, and just disagreed on the percentage of nuclear (especially in the USA).

Oh well – I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

I will continue to advocate for increased nuclear power and you can keep doing whatever it is you do.

So I think we are in agreement on this issue.

No, we are not. Nuclear will at the very best manage ~25% by later this century so W&S will have to scale commensurately to fill the supply deficit created by FF phaseout.

I’ve explained why you are full of shit on nuclear. I don’t agree with your bullshit numbers. Nor does anyone in the industry from the WNA on down. Imo you are just another little political troll who doesn’t even care enough to do the most basic research into this and refuses to listen to the explanations provided by those who have.

What happened to the wedges?
For anything but nuclear, a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions would be looked upon favorably.

BBD:

I fully accept that wind and solar will be part of the future energy mix. That is why I have room for 20 – 40% for alternative energy in what I have always advocated.

I simply push back on 100% renewable and argue and advocate for nuclear as a very large part of the future fuel mix (60-80%).

So I think we are in agreement on this issue.

Secretly I believe you actually agree with me. Increasing intermittent power sources just means increasing the backup power sources – and you know this.

Hardly secret, since I’ve said the exact same thing here on several occasions. The interesting part of the conversation starts when you accept that there is no alternative to large-scale wind and solar in any future low-carbon energy mix. Then we get to talk about the mix of backup generators – which is a knotty problem. And yes, nuclear can play its part in this – you know I’m not anti-nuclear, just anti you trolling on the issue.

Last time I checked the USA was part of the world.

But not all of it. Please stop the stupid trolling.

I have never said the WORLD should move to 80% nuclear (not that this is a bad idea).

The WNA – no less – cannot imagine a more optimistic scenario than 25% of global electricity generation by mid-century allowing for differential build-out in developed vs developing countries.

More nuclear power is the answer – not less.

No, even under the most optimistic fairy-dusted WNA scenarios, nuclear is not the answer.

Your denial of the facts does not change the facts.

Last time I checked the USA was part of the world. So if the world has to triple its nuclear, than the USA, being part of the world, should triple its nuclear. That is 60% (if the USA triples).

I have always being talking about the USA (because this is where I vote). I have never said the WORLD should move to 80% nuclear (not that this is a bad idea). I have always advocated the USA moving to produce 60 to 80% of its power with the non-carbon emitting baseload method of nuclear fission.

So when the WNA advocates tripling nuclear – I say sounds good.

Hell – I would be happy if the USA doubled its nuclear from 20 to 40%. That’s a start. Once we get rolling on any increase in nuclear at all – the die will be set and nuclear will come to dominate, as it is the clearly rational choice for the future.

Secretly I believe you actually agree with me. Increasing intermittent power sources just means increasing the backup power sources – and you know this. Now California knows this. Now Germany knows this. Now Australia knows this.

More nuclear power is the answer – not less.

As usual at this point in your evasion strategy, you conflate the US with the world.

Global carbon emissions require global solutions. The US is not the world.

We’ve been through this before.

The WNA says “To meet the growing demand for sustainable energy, we will need nuclear to provide 25% of electricity before 2050 as part of a clean and reliable low-carbon mix. Achieving this means nuclear generation must triple globally by 2050.”

Well – if we tripled the USA 20% we would be at 60%. Once you decide you have to triple nuclear by 2050, it isn’t a big step to quadruple it (which is what I am calling for).

I don’t think it is I who is in denial over nuclear. It is just a matter of time before the rest of the world catches up and decides to go hard after nuclear power – the safest, most dense, baseload non-carbon power source we have right now.