New research shows renewables are more profitable than nuclear power

However, the researchers show that in terms of cost and speed, renewable energy sources have already beaten nuclear and that each investment in new nuclear plants delays decarbonization compared to investments in renewable energies. “In a decarbonizing world, delays increase CO2 emissions,” the researchers pointed out.

They talk about profit to get the attention of money people, but the ultimate goal is decarbonization. Hell, the title of the source article is "Why investing in new nuclear plants is bad for the climate".

You seem to be implying that there's some problem with going to renewables but there isn't. It's just quicker and cheaper than nuclear to do so. It's not like it's breaking new ground either - plenty of places have already done it.

Nuclear is the hard way of doing this, not renewables.

If people internalized that last line of yours we could get shit done. ..

Solar price still decreasing and the demand never been so high. That's the faster energy deployment.

Wait, do you really expect us to believe that increasing solar will increase its price? Have you looked at the cost of solar over the past decade? Do you understand the economy of scale as it applies to all 3 (solar, wind, and batteries) because I don’t think you do.

baseline

Base load. Here's an argument that we don't need it: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/28/we-dont-need-base-load-power/

They don't provide different things, they both provide electricity. Nuclear is only really suited to base load, whereas renewables can be spun up and down to match varying demand - however renewables are also more than capable of covering base load, because it's all just electricity.

The only thing nuclear provides that renewables don't is grid stability. Nuclear turbines have large rotating masses, when loads are switched on and off they keep spinning the same speed, helping to maintain voltage and frequency. Meanwhile renewables are almost all run via inverters, which use feedback loops to chase an ideal voltage and frequency, but that gives them an inherent latency when dealing with changes on the network. However, there are other ways of providing grid stability.

It's not a windmill. It doesn't mill anything. The technical term is Wind Turbine Generator (WTG), but usually they're called wind turbines or just turbines. A group of turbines make up a wind farm.

Land occupied is not much of a concern when most renewables (and nuclear, for that matter) tend to be installed away from population centres. It feels like you're grasping for reasons now.

Suffice it to say, I work in the electrical industry, and this isn't the first report that's come out saying renewables are cheaper, better value and quicker to build and get us to net zero when compared to nuclear. That isn't to say nuclear isn't important and shouldn't be built, just that nuclear shouldn't be a priority in pursuit of phasing out fossil fuels. At the end of the day, demand will only go up, so building a lot of renewables before building nuclear won't exactly be going to waste. We'll need all of it.

Two's a crowd: Nuclear and renewables don't mix

Only the latter can deliver truly low carbon energy, says new study

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201005112141.htm

If countries want to lower emissions as substantially, rapidly and cost-effectively as possible, they should prioritize support for renewables, rather than nuclear power.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00696-3

Adding 1GW that runs 80% of the time with months long outages to a grid that has 10GW of power available 95% of the time and 3GW 5% of the time doesn't fix the issue and requires charging $4000/MWh rather than merely $200/MWh to pay back your boondoggle.

All the people chanting "baseload" understand this but pretend not to.