So you’re then left with a choice. Go with nuclear, or use fossil fuels, to make up the remainder of your energy consumption.
For example, Germany is still under 50% renewable despite their recent pushes. But instead of getting the other 50% from a relatively clean source (nuclear), they choose instead to use fossil fuels.
Unless you're saying that Germany is choosing to build new fossil fuel plants instead of building more renewables (which it largely isn't), what you're describing is a transition that isn't finished yet, not a choice.
https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/DE
As I write this:
* Germany has 68GW of wind capacity. Only 3GW are currently producing, because there's no wind.
* Solar is doing just as bad, with 9.11GW active out of 53GW
* Even worse, in the last 24 hours, wind has basically been at 5% capacity the entire time. Solar picked up quite a bit, but the base production is guaranteed by coal plants. This gets immensely worse at night where this rises to over half of their energy output
* Each kWh has cost the world the emission of 400g of CO2.
* Even in the best possible conditions, their green mix still ejects 210g of carbon per kWh.
The green energy ayatollahs, with their there-is-no-alternative policy are making things worse by refusing a temporary, controlled, safe source of energy. Is nuclear ideal ? No. Should it be a temporary (~100 years or so) source of energy while we transition to better options ? Yes. Is it the best solution that we have to fight climate change as it stands ? Absolutely.
And yes, they are building new coal plants to make up for their decisions. Datteln 4 just started up last year.
I just rewound the slider to 8pm yesterday and it says "35% renewable".
But I can confirm that the sun is shining because it's shining directly on my roof and satellite images show a clear sky for anything south of Frankfurt.
France, which doesn't really invest heavily in renewables is at 30% right now. Spain is at 60%, and most of Europe is around 40%. It's not exactly hard. Sure, Germany doesn't have some sources (hydro is an amazing source of power), but let's not pretend that Germany is doing something amazing here. Additionally, looking only at renewable does not tell the whole story. Would you like to have 100% renewable through solar panels ? The rare earths required to build them, and the mining methods are absolutely horrendous for the environment. Not to mention changing them regularly, the sheer amount of space required for them, and potentially the batteries :since Germany doesn't exactly have lakes it can pump full of water to store energy, its options are good old chemical batteries, or Power to gas to power with its absolutely HORRENDOUS 15% efficiency.
Our primary focus should not be renewable. We legitimately have enough resources to burn uranium for thousands of years. The sun will not stop shining on us, nor will the wind stop blowing, nor the water stop moving. We have time to develop these technologies further and make them truly a solution. As it stands, they are not. The current priority should be low carbon.
Your attack, pretending I'm just looking for a rant is unjustified, but once again, I'm not surprised. Ideology does this. I'm looking for a better planet, for us to be able to electrify as much as possible so that we can be rid of fossil fuels. Germany isn't exactly helping with this.
100% solar is a strawman you constructed. Nobody is suggesting anything close to that. And don't pretend that uranium mining is a clean business.
Power to gas technology is still in its infancy, efficiency rates will improve as it is scaled up. Every technology starts out small.
Any nuclear project we start now won't be producing power for at least a decade, more likely two. We don't have that time. You might have had an argument twenty years ago, but arguing that we can defer renewable investment if we just build enough nuclear now doesn't make sense to me. By the time your proposed plants start to come online, the transition needs to be complete.
And if you're truly interested in debate, maybe you shouldn't compare your opponents to a murderous regime?
Oh, and renewables are at a standstill as well, for the last few years there was very much stagnating growth in capacity. Since older renewable investments are reaching the end of their component lifetimes and subsidy periods, we will soon be at net negative growth in renewable capacity.
I'm not sure where politics will proceed from here, depends on the election(s) this fall. Appetite for more renewables with ever-rising prices isn't as high as it used to be, at least in my subset of the population.
I've argued it in other places in this thread, but I really think the only solution we have right now for clean baseline power is nuclear energy.