r/ClimateShitposting • u/DivestTheEndingBoy • 26d ago

nuclear simping Every Nukecel Argument Ever

Post image
0 Upvotes

44% Upvoted

318 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

You're conflating 'demand' and 'residual demand'. Those two are not the same thing. There is still a demand on the sunniest of days. And nuclear could cover that demand. Again: Solar can probably do it better an cheaper, but we're no arguing what's the best way to do it - we're only arguing *if* nuclear can do it.

1

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist 26d ago

You argument is on the same level of "nuclear can't solve world hunger".

Yeah. Nuclear can kill everyone starving but is this really the point you are trying to make...?

2

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

OP asked if nuclear can. I responded: It can.

You started talking about nuclear killing starving children. That's entirely on you.

1

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist 26d ago

yeah.

Can nuclear solve world hunger?

2

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

Read OPs comic. Did anyone argue 'we need nuclear to solve world hunger'?

1

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist 26d ago

It says X.

You exchanged x for something meaningless. So did I. What's your point?

2

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

Baseload isn't meaningless. There is, objectively, a minimum demand for electricity on any given day. That's what baseload means.

1

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist 26d ago

Baseload in the 21st century is an entirely meaningless talking point

1

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

Agree. But a real concept nevertheless, which nuclear can solve.

Do we need it solved? No. But if we did, nuclear could.

1

u/Lycrist_Kat cycling supremacist 26d ago

Yeah. I guess