I wrote a larger comment addressing this, but honestly, you’d be better just googling it. It’s eminently plausible, it’s the industry consensus. Here’s a Wikipedia link for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

[–] Claidheamh 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.[122][123]

"Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched". The Economist. 6 March 2021. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 31 January 2022. McDonnell, Tim (3 January 2022).

"Germany's exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive". Quartz. Retrieved 31 January 2022.

In November 2014 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came out with their fifth report, saying that in the absence of any one technology (such as bioenergy, carbon dioxide capture and storage, nuclear, wind and solar), climate change mitigation costs can increase substantially depending on which technology is absent.

[–] Blake@feddit.uk -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for your sources which support my claims.

Some argue that transitioning to 100% renewable energy would be too slow to limit climate change, and that closing down nuclear power stations is a mistake.

So, what we have here, is two opinion pieces from business-focused news websites, vs the scientific consensus of domain experts in the field of energy production, the IEC, IEEE and countless others. Very cool, very good proof of your claims.

Germany’s exit from nuclear energy will make its power dirtier and more expensive

“Germany has committed to source 80% of its electricity from renewables by 2030”

This article contains no arguments whatsoever that nuclear is better than renewables.

Nuclear power must be well regulated, not ditched

“Nuclear power has a lot of drawbacks. Its large, slowly built plants are expensive both in absolute terms and in terms of the electricity they produce. Its very small but real risk of catastrophic failure requires a high level of regulation, and it has a disturbing history of regulatory capture, amply demonstrated in Japan. It produces extremely long-lived and toxic waste. And it is associated with the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Most of the countries outside Europe that use nuclear power have some history of attempting to develop a bomb. All these factors contribute to an unease with the technology felt, to greater or lesser extent, by people all around the world.”

This isn’t even all of the drawbacks. The advantages of nuclear power, according to that article? It’s safe (but still not as safe as renewables”, and “hey, at least it’s better than fossil fuels”. That’s not the argument. The argument has to be how nuclear is better than renewables.

We’re done here.

[–] Claidheamh 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Very cool, very good proof of your claims.

I made no claims, I quoted from the wikipedia link you posted for us, which you may have not read yourself. You're clearly a bigger expert than the IPCC though, so I wouldn't even dare to make claims in your presence.