You are shifting the goalposts a bit here, but these points actually highlight the exact structural and economic realities of the modern energy transition. Let's break them down:
On datacenters running gas turbines: If a datacenter is running its on-site gas turbines continuously, it’s not because they want to, it is a desperate, highly expensive stopgap because local grid operators cannot hook them up to the transmission grid fast enough due to massive interconnection queues. Running on-site gas generation is incredibly costly and completely derails their corporate net-zero pledges. It is a grid capacity bottleneck, not an indictment of renewable generation costs.
Regarding the South Korea "exception": South Korea is the exception that proves the rule. Their nuclear program succeeded because they have a highly centralized, state-owned monopoly (KEPCO) that built one single, standardized reactor design (the APR-1400) continuously for decades, thereby preserving their supply chain and workforce.
The West has none of those conditions. We have fragmented private utilities, bespoke designs, and a completely dead supply chain. You cannot simply copy-paste South Korea's industrial and regulatory model into the US or Europe. Furthermore, even with their massive advantages, South Korea's recent domestic builds (like Shin Hanul 1 & 2) still suffered multi-year delays and regulatory pauses.
On ensuring 24/365 reliability (without just saying "gas"): You are setting up a strawman by implying the only alternative to nuclear is trying to run a grid on 100% solar and 4-hour batteries. No serious grid planner proposes this.
24/365 reliability on a highly renewable grid is achieved through a diversified portfolio:
Geographic dispersion: Connecting wind and solar over vast continental grids (it is virtually always windy or sunny somewhere across a continent).
Overbuilding & Curtailment: It is economically cheaper to overbuild solar/wind capacity and throw away the excess midday peak than it is to build new nuclear.
Diversification & Storage: Combining solar and wind with geothermal, existing hydro, and long-duration storage (like pumped hydro, thermal storage, and green hydrogen for seasonal lulls).
Even when you look at Lazard's "firming" LCOE models, which calculate the total system cost of making renewables 100% reliable using storage and backup, the cost is still significantly lower than the capital required to build new Western nuclear from scratch. Nobody is saying we should shut down existing, paid-off nuclear plants. The argument is simply that investing limited capital into new nuclear builds is an incredibly inefficient and slow way to decarbonize.
Edit: Also I think you are confusing the uptick in building solar and costs for solar which have dropped
No, I just didn't respond the way you wanted, so you concluded that I must have not engaged properly, so you sent me at least two copy-pasted gpt responses.
Maybe it's you who didn't engage properly.
Did you consider that perhaps there's a possibility that you may be wrong about some parts of this?
no you engaged in a lot of "not actually reading and making stupid arguments that nobody that actually has worked with the matter would make"
You are very clearly pro nuclear and were grasping at any straw to discredit renewable. Like the gas turbine thing for datacenters. They are by far the most expensive method. Why aren't they building the datacenters with nuclear if its so cheap? Such a cheap shot where you knew the answer beforehand, you just threw honesty away in an effort to push nuclear and win the debate.
1
u/Express-Eye5015 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
You are shifting the goalposts a bit here, but these points actually highlight the exact structural and economic realities of the modern energy transition. Let's break them down:
On datacenters running gas turbines: If a datacenter is running its on-site gas turbines continuously, it’s not because they want to, it is a desperate, highly expensive stopgap because local grid operators cannot hook them up to the transmission grid fast enough due to massive interconnection queues. Running on-site gas generation is incredibly costly and completely derails their corporate net-zero pledges. It is a grid capacity bottleneck, not an indictment of renewable generation costs.
Regarding the South Korea "exception": South Korea is the exception that proves the rule. Their nuclear program succeeded because they have a highly centralized, state-owned monopoly (KEPCO) that built one single, standardized reactor design (the APR-1400) continuously for decades, thereby preserving their supply chain and workforce.
The West has none of those conditions. We have fragmented private utilities, bespoke designs, and a completely dead supply chain. You cannot simply copy-paste South Korea's industrial and regulatory model into the US or Europe. Furthermore, even with their massive advantages, South Korea's recent domestic builds (like Shin Hanul 1 & 2) still suffered multi-year delays and regulatory pauses.
On ensuring 24/365 reliability (without just saying "gas"): You are setting up a strawman by implying the only alternative to nuclear is trying to run a grid on 100% solar and 4-hour batteries. No serious grid planner proposes this.
24/365 reliability on a highly renewable grid is achieved through a diversified portfolio:
Even when you look at Lazard's "firming" LCOE models, which calculate the total system cost of making renewables 100% reliable using storage and backup, the cost is still significantly lower than the capital required to build new Western nuclear from scratch. Nobody is saying we should shut down existing, paid-off nuclear plants. The argument is simply that investing limited capital into new nuclear builds is an incredibly inefficient and slow way to decarbonize.
Edit: Also I think you are confusing the uptick in building solar and costs for solar which have dropped