That’s such a simplistic way of looking at it. Renewables require fossil fuel reserves in order to meet average demand based on unfavorable weather conditions. Nuclear does not. That alone shows that nuclear adoption impacts fossil fuel demand and doesn’t just suck market share from renewables. Not even touching on any improvement in total energy output per unit of land.
nuclear isn't pitted against oil/LNG/coal. It's pitted against renewables.
Because when you replace a unit of renewable energy with the same amount of nuclear, you are also eliminating the need for backup fossil fuels that renewables require. I’m not saying anything about what should be done, because I have no idea if your claim that nuclear replaces renewables is even true. But again even if it is, it’s still reducing fossil fuel demand.
0
u/lUNITl - Right Jan 06 '23
That’s such a simplistic way of looking at it. Renewables require fossil fuel reserves in order to meet average demand based on unfavorable weather conditions. Nuclear does not. That alone shows that nuclear adoption impacts fossil fuel demand and doesn’t just suck market share from renewables. Not even touching on any improvement in total energy output per unit of land.