Net watts are a measure of average capacity and are not peak watts. TWh per year is a unit of net power. But you know this and you know the figures I was quoting were net because you know the output of the world's nuclear fleet and you know renewables are slightly higher.

Just as you said: renewables exceeded the nuclear fleet last year, growing by 50GW net. Production capacity is online for another 100GW net this coming year. China alone has an achievable plan for half a terawatt of new net production, and renewable targets have been consistently exceeded.

> Is there a specific reason you insist on this kind of velocity? Global warming is going to gradually increase as a problem over the next 200 years, if we continue our current course, it's not like the world is ending in 2030.

This kind of velocity is the pace the renewable industry is operating at, with a clear roadmap to meet the target, and the pace it is necessary to move at to avoid the worst outcomes.

If the nuclear industry can't scale to meet it, that's fine. We'll use the technologies that can.

> we may be able to triple both over the next 15-20 years.

So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years? Wind is on track to triple in under half of that, solar in around a quarter. Both are on track to provide a meaningful portion of primary energy in 15-20 years.

> Nuclear produced 2.8TW

TWh. Which is around 320GW.

> As for your "Peak Uranium" hypothesis, I suggest looking at the history for "Peak Oil". Oil was predicted to reach its peak in year 2000,

And drilling has gotten more destructive and energy intensive ever since. Oil and gas platforms are resorting to using nuclear, solar, and wind to keep extracting because oil is not a sufficient energy source to extract oil. The predictions about the resources were accurate. The predictions that we'd lean into the insanity of continuing extracting ultra deep oil or tar sands when it's barely energy positive are where it went wrong.

> And as far as I can tell, we DO need it (or nuclear in some other form), if we're supposed ween ourselves off fossil fuels this century. Wind and solar may be competitive in some locations up to some production volumes, but they seem to have very diminishing returns above some level, due to storage costs and available land areas.

Very nice weasel words. I've never asserted that nuclear can't contribute, only that it cannot match the scale of renewables and suggesting we stop renewable investment to focus on it because only nuclear can scale is a blatant lie that serves only delay decarbonization. You've just reasserted that this is true. Thank you for agreeing.

> Maybe we can, some day, have solar panels carpeting the Sahara or even in Outer Space, but that's definitely scifi.

Revealing further that you can't comprehend how renewables scale. As a demonstration of how terrible a representation of scale this is:

World primary energy is about 17TW or 2kW per person. In the regions that 93% of people live, this takes under 50m^2 per person. There are a few cities like Milan with more people than sunlight, but there is enough space in Tokyo to provide this much net energy for every resident and still have plenty left over for outdoor spaces. The denser regions can import energy heavy goods, and still have enough space for electricity if they really didn't want to put a few shades up on some livestock farms.

Simply covering the space rendered uninhabitable by Inkai Uranium mine would provide more energy than the mine does.