No. It’s as simple as:

A) battery tech isn’t good enough or clean enough

…and…

B) renewables aren’t reliable enough (peak generation times don’t line up with peak demand times)

You could learn this within 1 minute of asking chatgpt, so I’m not sure what the motivation is here if you actually aren’t anti-nuclear.

Also, for human society to move up the kardashev scale (or even just utilize current AI) we cannot do it with renewables. Renewables only scale by using up a crap ton of fossil fuels to mine the materials and factory produce the equipment and ship it around the globe. Nuclear runs steady and practically forever off material that fits in a small box.

Ultimately, we need both. As China has already realized.

▲

pfdietz 2 days ago | parent [-]

But you're wrong. Batteries are now fine for diurnal storage, which is their intended use. Batteries are not fine for seasonal storage, but there are alternatives for that when it is needed.

China is installing vastly more renewables than nuclear. Their nuclear builds appear to be just a holding action to preserve their capability to build NPPs; that can't last forever.

▲

pembrook 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes the alternatives for the seasonal storage problem are...fossil fuels. So obviously if we can't solve the seasonal problem yet with batteries, current battery tech isn't capable enough to make clean energy a reality without Nuclear.

Also, China's energy mix is irrelevant for Europe, the two regions have vastly different climates, population distributions, and government.

Europe has much bigger seasonal gaps in the winter for things like solar; Hydro is huge in China due to massive river systems like the Yangtze, but basically tapped out in Europe; Wind is a huge opportunity in China but only works Offshore in Europe; Europe can't run cross-continent UHV grid systems like China due to beaurocratic impossibility; etc. etc.

	▲	pfdietz 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's an alternative for the seasonal storage problem, and currently the cheapest one. That doesn't mean other alternatives don't exist, just that those alternatives are not currently competitive with fossil fuels. One should not use this situation that those alternatives can't exist or be reasonably expected to exist, or that a system using them would be more expensive than a system using nuclear. If that were a valid argument, one could equally argue that because new nuclear cannot compete with natural gas combined cycle for baseload, new nuclear is not an option.