You didn't give reasons. You presented this as an undeniable fact. And the whole reason is "but advances".
E.g. you literally listed green hydrogen as a viable storage solution even if we literally don't know how to store it reliably at required scales. Oh, wait. Your answer to that is "we just store it in underground caverns" lol. Even though it's very, very different to storing natural gas. For example, it takes 16 times as much energy to compress hydrogen as methane. Or that hydrogen embrittlement is a thing (I'm pretty sure you didn't know about this and think that we just pump hydrogen or, indeed, natural gas into empty caverns underground).
And so on and so forth.
> Unlike renewables, nuclear hasn't demonstrated a good experience curve.
Could it be almost 40 years of fear mongering and no advances in nuclear? Whereas France with its nuclear reactors has been busy keeping Germany afloat after it shut down its plants. And whereas China is went from 9 constructions in 2000 to 36 in 2025, 42 new ones proposed, and over 140 on the roadmap, 6-7 years construction time per reactor.
> One can model to determine the effect of intermittency and renewables still come out on top.
Ah yes. So on top, that once there's winter all "on top" countries end up importing energy from countries with stable power generation in form of nuclear and hydro.
> This is why renewables are being installed globally and nuclear largely isn't.
Nuclear isn't installed due to 40 years of nuclear fear-mongering and anti-nuclear policies. China has no issues installing both nuclear and renewables.
Many countries are now reverting their stance on nuclear precisely because diversifying energy sources is a good thing, and we literally don't have more stable sources of electricity than nuclear. We're literally discussing this under a post about Canada finally admitting that nuclear is a good thing actually why don't we build more of it. Following most of Europe, for example. And Asia has never been shy of nuclear energy, with China busily building reactors all over Asia and Middle East.
> I'm pointing out your requirement that no advances be considered also rules out nuclear.
Note how you again invent requirements for no advances, assume this is a fact, and pretend that it is I who requires this. Imagine if you ever had an argument in good faith.
You didn't give reasons. You presented this as an undeniable fact. And the whole reason is "but advances".
E.g. you literally listed green hydrogen as a viable storage solution even if we literally don't know how to store it reliably at required scales. Oh, wait. Your answer to that is "we just store it in underground caverns" lol. Even though it's very, very different to storing natural gas. For example, it takes 16 times as much energy to compress hydrogen as methane. Or that hydrogen embrittlement is a thing (I'm pretty sure you didn't know about this and think that we just pump hydrogen or, indeed, natural gas into empty caverns underground).
And so on and so forth.
> Unlike renewables, nuclear hasn't demonstrated a good experience curve.
Could it be almost 40 years of fear mongering and no advances in nuclear? Whereas France with its nuclear reactors has been busy keeping Germany afloat after it shut down its plants. And whereas China is went from 9 constructions in 2000 to 36 in 2025, 42 new ones proposed, and over 140 on the roadmap, 6-7 years construction time per reactor.
> One can model to determine the effect of intermittency and renewables still come out on top.
Ah yes. So on top, that once there's winter all "on top" countries end up importing energy from countries with stable power generation in form of nuclear and hydro.
> This is why renewables are being installed globally and nuclear largely isn't.
Nuclear isn't installed due to 40 years of nuclear fear-mongering and anti-nuclear policies. China has no issues installing both nuclear and renewables.
Many countries are now reverting their stance on nuclear precisely because diversifying energy sources is a good thing, and we literally don't have more stable sources of electricity than nuclear. We're literally discussing this under a post about Canada finally admitting that nuclear is a good thing actually why don't we build more of it. Following most of Europe, for example. And Asia has never been shy of nuclear energy, with China busily building reactors all over Asia and Middle East.
> I'm pointing out your requirement that no advances be considered also rules out nuclear.
Note how you again invent requirements for no advances, assume this is a fact, and pretend that it is I who requires this. Imagine if you ever had an argument in good faith.