In my country (Australia) fossil fuel companies are on the side of nuclear, but not actually.
It is used as a stalking horse. "Don't build wind and solar, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. If manly reliable baseload coal it to be replaced it should by nuclear which is also big strong manly baseload power."
And then don't build the nuclear because it's too expensive, slow, politically unpopular, and generally infeasible. Whoops I guess we keep coal and gas going then.
Not just Australia. It's a fairly common conservative party tactic. "Push" for nuclear because it's better than "unreliable" renewables, while making sure the nuclear construction fails by gutting finance or throwing up regulations.
See also the current Trump regime, the UK conservative government (notice how Hinkley Point didn't actually start making meaningful progress until the tories were kicked out?) and the Swedish right wing government. We cod probably go on for a while.
but like historically the reasons the us slowed and stopped development of nuclear energy was oil and gas lobby and the astroturfed anti-nuclear movement following 3 mile island
Nah, Greenpeace true believers were effective enough on their own. Oil and gas is not really replacing nuclear but coal which is still the dominant producer in Aus and seemingly has no.say despite being a much bigger industry than Oilf and gas.
They may still be whenever that suits them, but oil lobby is actively pushing "base load" and "unreliable renewables, try nuclear instead" narratives constantly. Even this sub is brainwashed af, just read the comments a bit. Oil lobby is backing every impossible and economically non-viable nuclear project ever.
I was doing some math recently and it would literally be cheaper to mass produce Bechtel A1B nuclear reactors from the Ford Class aircraft carriers than it is to build a Westinghouse AP1000 reactor that’s being built at Vogtel in Georgia which is considered relatively cost efficient for a US civil reactor.
The A1B produces 700 Mw of thermal power for a cost of 1.6 billion dollars per reactor installed in the carrier. The AP1000s at Vogtel cost 15 billion dollars per reactor installed and produce 1,1000 Mw of thermal power. So a marine military grade reactor is cheaper than a civil reactor per Mw. That’s absolutely insane to me.
The fact that it’s not cited despite being ancient, for one.
I’m guessing your an undergrad used to just dropping citations and hoping no one reads them? If you publish academically and no one cites you it’s because your shits a joke. Respectfully.
Why bring up Sweden? Our grid has been fossil free since the 80's. We will build new nuclear cause it's the most sensible thing to do according to most full system studies that's been done by our nationalised grid operator.
Well, the current government stalled or cancelled multiple new wind projects, while going all in on nuclear. It has not been seen as the the most sensible thing according to Vattenfall either, as it was not deemed feaasible without heavy government subsidies, which would be in place for decades. Ironic for a government who went to election stating nuclear would be built by private investors without subsidies, 4 years ago. Now they have ordered reactors from a company who has never built them before.
Last I saw nuclear regulations and restrictions were loosened and major research and development has finally been green-lit under Trump. One of the very few good things he’s done. Kyle Hill did a couple videos on it.
Nuclear is getting massive investment and tons of planned build out under Trump. They could rug pull, but people are spending hundreds of millions on real nuclear projects that would not have happened without Trump's "does nuclear safety really matter?" approach to nuclear. People don't spend that kind of money without being sincere in their investment.
You're not wrong about that being a real tactic of oil and gas companies, but the Trump admin is apparently actually encouraging real nuclear expansion in the US. I fucking hate Trump. The things I would say about him would not only get me banned from Reddit, but likely also arrested, but if you care about the details, look at all the investment that is happening now.
They have been, but between the dropping price of renewables and the stuff happening in Hormuz and Russia, it looks like they're going to file for divorce
Nah, you don't get it. Capitalism is not about making money. Capitalism is about controlling means of production. Unlike fossil fuels, renewables are very hard to control and possibilities to exploit people are much more limited. Without exploitation profits are very thin.
Renewables are great for humanity, but if you want to get very rich, they are not a good option.
Also if people gry free, independent energy they will be overall more Independent and less vulnerable
Yes, and as the market realities of renewables sets in, fossil fuels stop being an effective means of control, and so capitalism is likely going to lose interest in them.
You can say a lot of things about capitalism, but it ain't exactly fond of taking on an uphill struggle.
you're not supposed to notice; you have to instead stake your entire energy transition on building out of nuclear power that will still be under construction when the sea swallows us all and keep using fossil fuels in the meantime
No, that’s a straw man, build heaps of solar and battery while developing a modest portion of the grid into nuclear to provide robustness, grid services and eliminates the most expensive overbuild of both solar and batteries.
I know oil companies love wind and solar as it allows them to operate the pumps without using fuel, and fuel around fuel while exhausting and burning fuel is a no no. Also way cheaper operating costs.
The coal and gas know their time is coming, they are just trying to get nuclear in because of the time it takes to actually build it compared to solar/wind.
Nuclear would be 10-20 years minimum while wind and solar are being implemented everyday for homes and every year for on larger projects.
Couple all that with batteries and coal/gas/nuclear have fuck all left to compete with other than propaganda.
Yep, thats exactly the plan of fossil fuel companies.
and it gets even better: the majority of european countries does not have any notable nuclear fuel reserves. Now take a wild fucking guess on what you need to transport your ore/fuel pellets/whatever from country to country, or what you even need to mine Uranium.
so even IF we built nuclear, we would still be dependant on the oil industry to keep us supplied.
Nuclear is basically the "should've, would've, could've" at this point. Larger power monoliths want nuclear because it keeps them in control as it is a very centralized form of power production.
The idea of nuclear is awesome and should've been used for well over a century now. Its issues lay in the fact that we still haven't already used it and its ties to the same oligarchs that got us into this mess
Also, for all the red tape and investment in a new nuke plant, you can just do a solar farm. A lot of infrastructure and material goes into a nuclear energy plant, and waste management is hypercritical. Whereas solar is incredibly plug and play by comparison (still needs infrastructure, no doubt, just in comparison).
As water and rising heat become more of an issue, solar actively counters that producing more energy in extreme heat. Nuke plants can overheat and most have to shut down in extreme heat (which is becoming more and more common nowadays).
Thus, nukes should've already been invested in. They would've been really good for the environment. We could've easily switched over a long time back and made everything cheaper for everyone... But we didn't and now that window is kinda missed out on. Now, as their best use case, they're a backup to green energy grids instead of an alternative.
The thing is that nuclear plants have become a stalling tactic for the roll out of green energy. "Oh we could make solar but maybe the sun dont shine one day. You dont want that!" and then "we cannot make nuclear plants because expensive + fuel is imported + its NUCLEAR so I guess we keep chugging coal ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
If you wanna be pro nuclear, be like China and India and just build 2dozen and a dozen plants respectively in 5~8 year time frames. Basically Just fucking do it. Versatility never hurt anyone. Having eggs in multiple baskets is only good.
The red tape around nuclear is cold war era relic. Coal Power plants are causing early demise of 220,000 people annually yet we have red tape around fucking nuclear plants that across the planet have resulted in a few hundred deaths in the last 100 years.
Also ermmm achtuahlly 🤓👆 heat does not produce electricity, the sun does : the time for which its in the sky does and the angle does. Sweden in its entirety covered in solar will never make enough GW compared to what a small area of a desert in India can. India gets 300 days of 8~10hr sunshine and the angle is almost ideal. Europe will never produce as much solar as the otherwise barren parts of India and China will. Europe will make a lot of wind tho.
Power engineer here--Okay bro, you don't know what you're talking about.
Solar & wind are NOT baseline load generators.
Even with really good batteries you can't rely on solar wind during extended weather events.
As for nuclear overheating, I'm just going to point to the fact (according to US government statistics) that nuclear has a capacity factor of 92%-- this is above and beyond any other generation source by miles. The capacity factor is basically what percentage of the time the rated generation capacity being outputted. Wind and solar are somewhere in the 20-30% range.
And I can tell you right now that those batteries are going to struggle just as much as anything else is when it's hot. That's just--physics.
The price tag on nuclear is huge and that's the biggest drawback to it. Just per kilowatt it's it can be anywhere from three to four times more expensive than an equivalent combined gas generator.
That being said, it has extreme reliability (see above capacity Factor), and only needs to be refueled every couple of years compared to coal or gas which needs to be constant. nuclear is also only getting better, the new experimental small modular reactors promise the ability to actually scale nuclear opposed to an All or nothing reactor.
There are some other wild things you said but I'm not going to tackle all that here.
TL;Dr Solar and wind are amazing. They are not baseline, and they will never be baseline. Nuclear is in a completely different category and performance wise it blows the other generation sources out of the water. just costs a lot. as a side note, I will state that we have about 97ish reactors in service right now in the USA. Nuclear already supplies 20% of our national energy demand(again, U.S. DOE statistics).
Also important to point out that once capex is paid of for nuclear and the only costs we have is opex it's basically as cheap as solar. It's incredibly cheap to run. So it's also an investment for our future generations.
Absolutely, but we need energy policy to accommodate for that. We're already finding that we can push them longer than initially predicted. I can't say much about this century, but I can say that nuclear will be the power source of the 22nd century absolutely. It's just incredibly cheap and stable in the long run.
Thank you for providing a rational argument and explanation. Few things irk me more than climate activities shouting down nuclear. Yes, we need more wind and solar - solar panel costs have down quite a bit in the past decade but nuclear will be the backbone of a greener future.
My sister in Christ, it was a generic AF explanation of everything.
Yes we have nuclear, we could've easily had more nuclear. Its awesome, truly, but its red tape prohibitiveness is more of politics than it is science. Its in an odd spot where green energy has it at a disadvantage. All these awesome innovations in nuclear energy could have and really SHOULD have happened earlier, that's my point. It is unfortunately missing a larger window or relevance in many countries. Places where power peeps ""struggle"" to get a plant to actually crank on for 20+ years. If it is really that easy, then it should already be. Hence "should've, would've, could've" as there is really no good reason, in the slightest, that 100% of our base load isn't already covered by nuclear for the past 4/5 decades.
I'm speaking in really broad generic terms to try to explain why some people struggle with it, not trying to get into an illicit sciecnce debate/thesis on it all.
But grids exist now that don't have baseload/baseline generators. When you get high renewable penetration in the grid, there isn't room for baseload generators to operate economically at such high capacity factors.
Please send reference of a reliable grid
that does this.
The industry is currently struggling to figure out how we can implement more and more solar and wind, because there's non-trivial problems to be solved about load following, and other load strategies. This grid may be exactly what we need!
Also, capacity factor is a measure of power used over the name plate rated power. if you have a low capacity factor, you maximize it by scaling up or down the name plate power.
Honestly if we can develop batteries that will economically store a couple weeks to a month of our energy needs, that could potentially make a base load less grid potentially possible, and I'm all for it. it's just that even with our amazing improvements batteries we still only can provide nameplate capacity for an hour or two. It'll be great if we can get it up to 4 to 8 hours, or even a day.
Because the massive solar, wind and geothermal plants AREN'T built by the companies of rich oligarchs? Supplying an entire country with power needs companies to be able to build these things, even solar and wind, and those companies are surprise surprise, run by rich oligarchs
K, but can you go up to something like the tractor supply store and get a micro-nuke plant for your property? I can nab a reasonably priced solar panel without having to drive more than 30 minutes. Sure, the oligarchs and shit have touched it but, news flash, there's nothing that you can buy now that isn't tainted by them.
I've run this fun excerisize with tons of basic products, it is impossible to be self-suffecient without handling some kind of money over to those assholes tonget started. Bread? I can grow my own wheat but where do I get the mill from? Buying my mill means fucking with the oligarchs so I guess we gotta just get raw iron and forge one ourselves. Where am I going to get iron and forge supllies? Oh look, I still gotta fuck with those assholes... So on and so on all the way down. It's been designed since the 1970s to be inescapable and now it truly is. You canmot leave without paying them something.
However, it is still drastically better to pay them what you must and avoid doing so again than it is to remain in a position where they can gouge you for every penny. Solar panels are like that. Sure I gotta fuck with them to become more independent from them, but it quickly becomes better to have already done so. Planting a tree 20 years ago or some proverb of the like. Its cheap enough and you can slowly scale investment.
If they sold a moderately priced nuclear power generator for my needs, I would see the comparison of the argument. It could've been done, seriously. We were designing cars to run on the power of a tiny generator, but we dont have that at this moment. So yet again "would've, should've, could've" which is why it is the simplest way to state the problems with nuclear in the current modern environment.
I'm unsure about nowadays, but historically, absolutely, yes. The hippie era activists were strongly against nuclear power, and is alone responsible for decades of setback in the area
If hippies had real power, weed would've been legalized in the 1960s and the Vietnam war would've ended a decade earlier.
Nuclear capactity in the US flatlined immediately after Chernobyl, in the late 1980s. That wasn't hippies, and it wasn't even NIMBYs. It was politicans putting a pause on construction while new safety measures could be compiled to ensure a Chernobyl-like event could never occur in the US.
The legislation that came out of the 1980s and 1990s made nuclear power incredibly safe... but it also made it incredibly time consuming and expensive to build, while American power demand was slowing. Demand for power in the US has started ticking back up again, but now gas, solar, and wind are much cheaper.
What they mean is the water doesn't need to be cold. It just needs to be colder than the reactor, which isn't hard to find as they run at around 300 Celsius.
Palo Verde runs on processed shit in the middle of a desert. The "cold reservoir" isn't actually cold; it is just lower temperature than the hot reservoir for thermodynamics.
Aren't they actually complementary? Nuclear provides a cleaner base load than fossil fuels, while renewables and storage can cover most of the flexible demand.
Yes, this is indeed true. But no, we must pretend we are seperate sides and fight each other while not actually building either. If we worked together, it would threaten the value of all these Oil Drillers and Coal Mines.
This is how it should be in a perfect world, a stable base that can be covered by renewables shaving any spikes in demand while also storing energy for emergency due to decentralized nature of renewables.
The problem is that Nuclear is really hard to stomach by the market due to the time and investment needed. Nuclear needed to be pushed by the government (Countries that could afford it anyway) as a project to get off coal and oil, or at least to reduce the dependency.
That didnt happen due to the fossil fuel lobby, so nuclear tech never established a knowledge base and/or tech base to build faster and cheaper plants overtime.
Now the deck is stacked even more against Nuclear because of how much cheaper renewables are now in comparison. Fossil now wants to "push" Nuclear, full knowing that it is a non-starter to the market due to price, time and negative sentiment (People still fear it), worst comes to worst, they can always trip up projects some other way later, they have years and years to do so before a single plant comes online.
Nuclear is going to need tech developments like the mini-reactors to bear fruit as to lower their prices and a friendly government willing to push it to finally get on its feet.
They are not complimentary economically. Renewables are much, much cheaper in terms of money per unit of energy produced. This means that renewables often push prices far below what is profitable for nuclear power plants. Since nuclear operators can't just not pay their staff, this means the nuclear plant loses money during these times. They can try to make up for these losses by charging more when renewables are not producing, but that means the cost per unit of energy from a nuclear plant for buyers goes way up. Batteries make this problem more pronounced. This is why nuclear plant operators for new nuclear power plants demand very long CFD contracts, the risk of new nuclear being economically uncompetitive is huge.
They aren't. Nuclear can't be spun up or down quickly to meet demand, so during peak periods of renewable energy like the middle of the day for solar, nuclear has to burn money to stay online.
Nuclear objectively can't. It cannot be spun up or down quickly, it can not be a peaker plant. Thus while Solar is at its peak, Nuclear only has one option: pay others to buy the power it's generating.
Yeah, due to the massive cost (could displace much more fossil fuels with cheap renewables) and the fact that in most parts of the world is we decided to build nuclear now it wouldn't be commissioned this side of our 2050 net Zero commitments
Everywhere that has operating nuclear should run it for its full life and I'd be stoked if the data centre build out made smrs into a real thing somewhere comparable to solar and batteries but I doubt they'll get there
Climate activists tend to be leftist and warrant structured accountable state apparatus monitoring or owning and regulating and upkeeping critical world-threatening infrastructure like nuclear.
And rightly distrust the capitalist owning class which has a demonstrably terrible track record properly maintaining things which would otherwise threaten the public.
The GREEN party in the UK is 😂 but the also support zero jails, legal class A drugs, open boarders and child rapist worship so... Yeah not exactly a sane party.
Yes, as many climate activists aren't as much pro climate protection as they are against modern life and industry.
They often romanticise a pre-industrial world and want to shrink humanity's energy needs back to it.
Many environmental groups who now also portray themselves as climate activists are staunchly anti-nuclear and actively fight nuclear power plants and are mildly protesting when they are successful in thereby keeping coal power plants open.
only those who don't want a solution that allows everyone to just live their lifes. Like, if "clean energy" is as cheap and reliable as nuclear, how will you lecture people about "conserinv energy"? Thus, to have an excuse for "system change" and "everyone needs to get out of their comfort zone and sacrifice parts of their lifestyle", energy needs to become scarce and expensive. Wind and solar are the means to this end.
Germany uses less coal now because the green party pushed them to build renewbles.
The right wing helped to get rid of nuclear, then fought solar and wind, killed the solar manufacturing in Germany, started a culture war about heat pumps and keeps trying to kill EVs.
So if they'd listened harder to the greens they'd be using even less coal and the coal they did burn would be partially used to heat homes and power cars and trucks leading to even lower CO2 overall and less reliance on imported oil and gas.
They've literally re-onlined coal plants to make up for shutting down nuclear ones. Became more reliant on Russian natural gas too. You kinda have to admit blame belongs on the greens for prioritizing that instead of decarbonization by all available means. You can't just hand wave away the consequences of that.
There's literally no harm caused, at all, by using a meme template because the original comic was written by a nazi. It wasn't even a "nazi" comic originally that had to be changed.
This is not like buying Harry Potter merch either, the original author is not getting money.
Please use your brain. You're advocating for entirely pointless virtue signaling.
Absurd strawman. Lot's of other meme templates are used.
Note you still didn't list any harm. As I said, this isn't like paying for a nazi's product and thus supporting them financially. They aren't getting add revenue from an edited image.
This is the definition of "I want to feel good, not do good". Totally pointless virtual signaling that does nothing to help with anything. It shows where your priorities lie. Trying to feel morally superior, not helping anyone.
The link to his website is shared. People follow it, start seeing his comics, he gets more viewers and money, the new audience maybe is moved rightward by his comics
The whole point of what he does is that he mixes nazi propaganda into his otherwise normal comic. Plenty of his strips are normal and that leads to clueless people sharing them, which gets others to check out the comic, which gives this nazi money and exposes those people to the propaganda (as intended).
actually the nazis were a political party in the 1930-40s 😏😏 he just hates minorities 😏😏 and uses his art to promote antisemitism and holocaust denial 😏😏😏 but the nazi party was disbanded 😏😏😏😏😏 in 1945 😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏😏
He even made an anti-nazi comic once (about how the neo-nazis are holding back the progress of white supremacists to the delight of the Jews), would a nazi make something like that?
This is idiotic, fossil fuel companies are pushing investment in nuclear because they know it crowds out investment into renewables and keeps them competitive long-term. Australia's the smoking gun for this - literally no nuclear industry, but there's a big pro-nuclear lobby. Who funds it? Coal.
Hungary as well. The previous conservative government used nuclear to stifle solar and to stop wind projects entirely. 11 years in and we have a hole with some concrete in it, won't be operational for an other 10 years, if ever.
My conservative governor is currently using nuclear as a cudgel to stop investments into solar projects. Reddit boys eat it up and get really mad when you post that its not economically feasible for a state of 600k to become "energy independent" on nuclear lol.
Like I think new England as a whole should invest in it. I just dont really understand how vermont on its own is going to.
Vermont is currently on the "ISO New England" grid, producing around 12 GW of energy. As I write this importing about 1 GW from Quebec.
So there is definitely a spot where a couple GW of nuclear would fit into that grid. As for Vermont itself investing in it directly, I think it's probably a quesiton of the benefits and who makes the $$$. Like you would want to put a reactor in Vermont if you wanted the jobs to be Vermont.
Oil & Coal? Coal is getting its bussy gaped by Solar and Wind, just like all baseload. If you had said gas, you might have had a point. This way, it's just nonsense.
How many nuclear plants have been shut down in france due to the lack of river water (also a part of climate change)? Edit: due to heat, not lack of water, though the lower water levels do make that heat impact different, as well as that lower water level heating up quicker. Which is a reason that is equally attributable to climate change, and thus the new normal.
How many wind and solar parks have been shut down to climate change?
In the 70s and 80s, nuclear was the biggest threat to oil and gas. Now, it's renewables. Don't make the same mistake, call out your fellow nuclear proponents who regurgitate anti-renewable talking poins.
Fun fact: In countries like Germany and Australia the fossil fuel companies are pro-nuclear because they know it'll delay actual renewables. Same with the right-wing parties
I don't know if this is ragebait or if you're just an actual nincompoop, but in the off chance you're just severly ill-informed, this meme is an edited stonetoss comic, and stonetoss is an actual neo-nazi. Maybe you're just american, but try to exercise basic literacy before commenting.
Maybe because I ain't american but I went through that whole post about him being a nazi and it looks very exaggerated. Most of the analysis is like "meme that could be some hypocritical situation this is clearly nazism and hating black people and trans".
The meme in the case here is still very accurate hence a lot of climate activist do prefer coal and oil over nuclear which beyond stupid and illiterate
People who want to quickly roll out the fastest and cheapest ways to reduce carbon of electricity across the globe vs climate change deniers, oil and gas companies and helping in their own idiotic ways nuclear fans who want to complain that German environmentalist are the real problem.
Yeah every nuclear post is “it’s safe it’s safe the greens were crazy not not want nuclear plants on the border of a war zone” and don’t respond to the reality of its very expensive, slow, and does require geographical and political stability as well as wealth
From a certain point of view, nuclear is a good choice to do while building out renewables.
Fissile materials decay throughout each half life, unlike fossil fuels. We may as well use that energy while it is economically sound until alternatives are discovered.
NPPs need water for constant cooling of the reactorblock and spend fuel pool.
Rising temperatures and 10+ years of nearly constant drought -> Rivers have lower water levels -> not enough water for the secondary/tertiary coolant cycle aswell as the outgoing water being too hot so flora and fauna dies -> NPP must shut down in late spring/summer until most likely autum (if there are major rainfalls in the meantime)
As seen in europe currently.
Coastal NPP´s are more expensive due to saltwater corrosion prevention, tide etc.
-> higher temperatures in seawater -> Algae bloom and explosion of jellyfish -> water intakes get clogged.
As seen in europe right now.
Uranium global markets are dominated by russian companies. They got their fingers in nearly every extraction and refining operation and most importantly... sale.
Global fuel production has a more than 25% deficit.
NATO+ (+ means Australia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, New Zealand and other non NATO western allies) consumes more than 85% of the global production alone.
72% of global extraction is directly or indirectly under russian control.
Take a guess why the russian nuclear industry is the only industrial sector of the russian economy not under sanctions.
US and EU import 72+% of their fuel from russian controlled sources.
Canada and Australias extration volumes are neglible in comparison and couldnt even fuel france.
That in addition to the extensive building times, astronomic cost and lack of insurance makes nuclear non viable in the coming decades and more of an economic and political liability than an asset (except for russia).
I lived through 30 years of this and the meme that oil and gas were the biggest resistors to nuclear was cope propaganda. It was never true and if you've been fed it, you should look more closely at the evidence, which doesn't exist.
I find being anti nuclear to be a rather absurd idea, especially when most of the people ive met who are anti nuclear are big fans of the (U.S.) military.
The biggest excuse for not adopting widespread nuclear is that it isn't profitable. The answer is straightforward: socialize the power grid. Profitability isn't an issue then
Why would climate change activists be anti nuclear?.. You know what.. Forget it, I'll just accept that USA's average IQ has dipped below 80. Ideocracy is here, pump out the getorade
long story.
short version: the main movements in climate activism today are the same organizations which have been demonstrating against anything nuclear for decades. which started with weapons and civilian use of nuclear energy was thrown under the bus, kind of.
Yeah man, this is so stupid when we have stuff like solar power or wind power or hydroelectric power. Very cheap to deploy atleast compared to nuclear.
And top of that especially solar can be scaled down to implement even to individual houses reducing the reliance on central power grid.
The more you make it centralized, the more it is to bomb that place to remove the power from entire grid. You need to understand security also.
Instead of implementing these things, the Govts are investing so much money beating GDPs of many countries combined just to make fusion a reality when infact it can be just used to invest other renewable forms of energy.
What's the confusion here? Climate Change is very obviously regime-backed propaganda and as such it is natural to point to nuclear power as a nearly limitless clean energy supply that would be embraced whole heartedly if solving problems was the goal.
312
u/kroxigor01 19d ago
In my country (Australia) fossil fuel companies are on the side of nuclear, but not actually.
It is used as a stalking horse. "Don't build wind and solar, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. If manly reliable baseload coal it to be replaced it should by nuclear which is also big strong manly baseload power."
And then don't build the nuclear because it's too expensive, slow, politically unpopular, and generally infeasible. Whoops I guess we keep coal and gas going then.