> 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.

I disagree. The "worst outcomes" are 200 years into the future, and a ramp up speed of 10 years doesn't matter much for that.

> So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years?

There are different ways to calculate "primary energy". Adjusted for inefficiencies, nuclear is 4.3%. In other words, tripling that means we can shut down at least ~9% of PE worth of fossil fuels plants.

Renewables get a similar boost from this approach, of course, at least long as we don't have to store it.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method

> So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years?

No, I'm saying we reduce the unneccesary costs, and let it pay for itself. By comparison, Germany has to impose a 25% "green energy" tax on electricity (including nuclear) to stimulate renewables.

> 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.

Oil is more valueable as a transportation fuel than as fuel for electricity production. And extraction uses electricity. This is about market price, not EROI. (Also, for instance in Norway, it's about CO2 quotas. Norwegian oil platforms are moving the land based electricity instead of the natural gas they extract alongside the oil for their electricity needs.)

EROI for nuclear is still around the highest there is, around 100x. There is massive headroom before EROI for nuclear goes down to unviable levels. (3x)

> .... weasel words ... because only nuclear can scale is a blatant lie ...

I didn't say only nuclear can scale. I do claim that nuclear is a better source of energy when it's dark and there's no wind.

Also, ad hominem attacks doesn't help your case.

> Revealing further that you can't comprehend how renewables scale.

More ad hominem. Do you want to start a flame war?

> 2kW per person. this takes under 50m^2 per person.

Maybe you should re-read your sources. Pretty sure you will find that 2kW is around the average output of 50m^2 during the peak of the day. This illustrates a risk of measuring energy in watts. Most such calculations use 4-6 as estimates for number of "hours" worth at such an output, meaning the area needed goes up by a factor of 4-6. So let's say 250m^2.

Now, on top of this, the energy tends to be needed either in a different location or at a different time. Batteres with a 70% efficiency increase this to 350m^2 while storing it as H2 at 25% full-cycle-efficiency increases it to 1000m^2. Multiply by the number of people on Earth, and you get a square of 2800 km on each side (8 million km^2). Which is close to the size of the Sahara.

That's all if you're planning to use the energy in the same location, and not transporting it anywhere.

To be fair, this would be electrical energy, which has higher value than the average primary energy. So only half the size of the Sahara (maybe 1/4 if it's located in the ACTUAL Sahara, since that place is rather sunny.)

On the other hand, world energy consumption is going up every year.

Btw, unless you put away those ad hominem attacks, I'm not going to reply further.