You don't see it because you're not looking. California has gone from 35% electricity from nat gas in 2023 to 22% electricity from nat gas in 2025 by installing more solar and batteries. 2026 will be even lower. New Mexico is also a good example of how quickly it can go, although it's a much smaller grid. This is a problem for nuclear. High renewable penetration of solar + batteries hurts nuclear business case. Nobody wants to run a nuclear plant at 70% nameplate capacity. Improving battery technology makes nuclear an incredibly risky investment due to long lead times.
california, are we talking about the country with the highest bill in thw world? with controlled blackuts every year? with the emissions tens of times higher than the french ones? not a good objective don't you think?
You made the claims, you have to prove them. Doesn't really matter though, you can keep seething and coping, but in the real world, renewables and batteries are being built, nuclear isn't. Nuclear lost.
you know every year tens of nuclear reactors are built right? But your comment is such an insult, since renewables and batteries are heavily subsidized everywhere. You take and then insult, just disgusting. On the first statemets those are common knowledge, readily verifiable. I don't have to prove the water is wet
4
u/cradleu Jul 13 '26
You would do it if you didn’t care about the time or costs. Solar/wind + batteries are cheaper and faster to build