Four points:

The profile of other is short spikes 5-100 hours a few times a year.

1 year of delay is equivalent to 20 years of exclusively using fossil fuels for “other”.

It’s not even obvious that adding nuclear reactors would reduce this because they’re so geographically and temporally inflexible. France has 63GW of nuclear capacity, <45GW of average load and 61GW of winter peak load with vast amounts of storage available via interconnect to hydro countries. They still use 5% gas on top of the rest of the “other” (which is about 10-25GW).

5% of other from gas adds about 20g CO2e/kg per kWh to the total. Less than the margin between different uranium sources.

Running 40% of the capacity 10% of the time puts your nuclear energy in the realm of $1-3/kWh. The list of ways of generating or storing 6% of your energy for <$1/kWh is basically endless.

That’s about 4-8TW of capacity worldwide. 1kg of uranium is good for fuelling about 750W of reactor on a 6 year fuel cycle. Loading those reactors would require digging up all of the known and assumed-to-exist uranium immediately.

Nuclear is an irrelevant distraction being pushed by those who know it will not work. You only have to glance at the policy history or donor base of the politicians pushing for it in Sweden, Canada, Australia, UK, Poland, etc etc or the media channels pushing it to see how obvious it is that it’s fossil fuel propaganda.

It is obviously obviously true that it’s a non-solution. It fails on every single metric. All of the talking points about alleged advantages are the opposite of the truth without exception.

“Baseload generator” isn’t a useful concept. And grid reliability (which is a useful concept) is thought about. It just doesn’t fit into a soundbite like winddon’tblowsundon’tshine.

Here’s an example of a full plan https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/major-publications/integrated-system-plan-isp/2022-integrated-system-plan-isp

Or a simpler analysis on the same grid: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/

For reference, 5kWh home batteries currently retail for about $1300 so this would add <10% to the capital cost compared to recent nuclear projects. Pumped hydro is about half the price per capacity, but a bit more per watt. The former is dropping at 10-30% per year, so by the time a nuclear plant is finished, storage cost would be negligible.

Here’s a broad overview of a slightly simplified model https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26355-z demonstrating similar is possible everywhere.

Even in the counterfactual case where the ~5% of “other” generation is only possible with fossil fuel, focusing on it is incredibly myopic because the resources spent on that 1% of global emissions could instead be used for the other 70% which isn’t from electricity and has different reliability constraints.

Look out! Communists are coming for your toothbrush. Better vote for harsher penalties for modifying stuff you bought. The DMCA still allows throwing away or disconnecting the computer locking you out of your heated seats.

Yes, many much easier ways. A propane tank for one. Wet, high CO2 methane is really hard to make explode.

Do get a CO detector though.

You can buy gas from anyone. Even make your own in a digester.

Your gas stove is not cryptographically locked to one gas company.

Spain and china managed just fine. Rail costs way less than 20 lane highways.

You’d have thought it was obvious, but everyone I’ve ever met IRL thought they’d be cheaper forever.

Tool built by narcissist gaslighters is good for bullshit but nothing else? Colour me shocked.

The myth they are dog whistling is just that. You can see it repeated everywhere the topic comes up and where they tried to conflate it with breeding. The method of lying is called paltering.

In reality reprocessing has no significant impact other than leaking Cs, Kr and Tc everywhere, increasing the volume of waste so it’s harderto handle and raising costs.

Instead we only have to worry about immediately running out of beryllium for breeding blankets just on the demo reactors.

All thermal generation will cause direct global warming via waste heat if used to excess.

Fossil fuels have an order of magnitude or two more thermal forcing via GHG, so it’s largely irrelevant there, but solar can produce a couple orders of magnitude more energy than the world uses now without significant land use. As such fusion (with the exception of p-B or He3 direct conversion with no steam engine which is a bit more scifi) hits thermal limits before solar hits land limits.

Intuitively you can frame this as “a small fraction of the amount of sunlight that hits the planet is the amount of energy that changes the planet’s temperature” which is basically a tautology.

You’re still trying to spread the “90% of nuclear waste is recyclable” myth, but now you’ve retreated to the bailey of “getting 10% more energy is technically getting something out of it so saying it is recyclable is totally true even though this has no impact on mining or the dangerous parts of waste!!” You’re also pretending it magically makes the Pu240 and Am241 go away.

Reprocessing yields a small fraction of leftover fissile material. It is in no way characterisable as recycling.

The strategy is a very boring and tiresome propaganda move that is part of the Duke Energy and Rosatom astroturfing playbook. As is the “who me? I couldn’t possibly be slyly trying to imply nuclear waste is actually fuel” act.

Ah. So intentional then. You’re trying to pretend extracting the <0.7% left over U235 and Pu239 (for a 10-15% increase in U235 fuel economy) is somehow fissioning U238.

You can’t amortise your capital if just the variable operating and maintenance is more than replacing the reactor with firmed renewables. This is not the case yet, but betting that renewables won’t halve in price one more time in 30 years is a pretty stupid bet.

Mean and median lifetime of a nuclear reactor is well under 30 years. Closer to 20 if you count all the ones that produced for 0 years.

SMR’s are even worse than the big ones. With no breeding and small, lower temperature steam generators they’d be undsr half as efficient as a traditional LWR. The fuel costs (which will only go up as the easy uranium is tapped out) alone would exceed the current all-in cost of renewables (which are still dropping rapidly).

You’re conflating leftover dregs of Pu-239 (about a 10-15% boost in energy per fuel input) with non-fissile material like U238. Breeder reactors required to use the second have never been used commercially in breeding mode.

You’ve either fallen for or are intentionally spreading a lie.

LWR fuel is incredibly limited without a massive fleet of breeders (and no breeder has ever run a full fuel cycle, nor has second generation MOX ever been used. First generation MOX is also incredibly polluting and expensive to produce).

The industry is already on to tapping uranium ore sources that are less energy dense than coal, and this is to provide a few % of world energy for a handful of decades.

Smugly attempting to mock people who care about animal welfare doesn’t justify all of the other harms you are doing.

Real meat from animals is good for you

It’s objectively bad for you in the quantities eaten by the west. Cutting out red meat, milk and most of the other animal products from your diet is measurably better for your health.

Stop giving billions to giant multinational cattle farming companies. It’s just as large an emissions source as oil (which you can also stop funding directly by avoiding driving where possible and going solar-powered electric for the rest)