The environmental movement isn't in charge. The world community (through mostly democratic elected governments) has decided to reduce emmissions to Net Zero, not energy usage.
An important point is that while we can and should maximize renewable sources as dominating energy sources, we still need stable backup for fluctuations - for days where there is little wind and little sun. We don't yet have practical energy storage technologies that would allow us to eliminate this problem.
It doesn't at all fit into a renewable model where you only sometimes need extra energy. If you want to get a way from gas peaker plants then you have to "over-provision" renewable.
You know, those that lately achieved the milestone in California of being the largest producer from sundown to midnight in terms of GWh.
What is it with the nuclear cult and this false dichotomy?
Is it because you need to justify spending 10x as much money on new built nuclear power coming online in the 2040s, which is too late to solve anything relevant?
Nuclear power is the worst ”peaker” imaginable.
Lets calculate running Vogtle at a 10-15% capacity factor like a traditional fossil gas peaker.
The electricity now costs $1-1.5/kWh. That is Texas grid meltdown prices. That is what you are yearning for.
What is the environment impact for each, per watt?
Generally these questions are centered around people trying to justify nuclear power by relying on the "long life". Thinking they will still be useful on the market in 100 years time.
For both batteries and solar panels if lifetime is the most central issue you can optimize for that. There are solar panels with 40 year warranties available and more costly batteries optimized for longer cycle life.
But the market is already choosing what to invest in. Good enough beats imaginary perfect every single time.
…and the green movement don’t realise they’re being the useful idiots of the fossil fuel industries, who have been using this attack line for decades because they didn’t want the competition.
If you keep putting off building because it’s “too slow to build”, then guess what - it never gets built.
Would you care to try to reconcile “too expensive” with “you can’t put a price on the planet”?
And nice try with the democratic angle, but the truth more like we have a growing world population with a growing need for abundant, reliable, affordable energy. And yet we’re held hostage by the luxury beliefs of a tiny minority who feel they have a right to govern and want to bask in their perceived virtue.
The CSIRO is Australian government funded and did a cost analysis: https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Ele...
Tldr nuclear is not worth building anymore. In fact they recommended no other power sources are worth building at this point given solar and winds cost effectiveness and the cost of batteries right now. This doesn't come from a climate angle. It’s pure economics.