Since I do not adhere to every tenet of your religion, you identify me as a heretic (an "anti-nuke.”)
I am not “anti-nuke.” I would greatly prefer to see nuclear fusion, rather than nuclear fission. Until fusion reactors are ready to deploy, fission is what we have. (They are not rapidly deployed. Historically, they have run past deadlines and over budgets. [Still waiting on those Gen-IV reactors which were "just around the corner" back in 2000…])
New York State relies on a modest fleet of aging “Gen-II” reactors. While they are obsolete, we cannot afford to simply take them off-line. Unlike many “progressives” in New York, I’m in favor of the plan to deploy "Advanced Nuclear Energy” (which includes nuclear fusion.)
At the same time, I support the use of batteries, hydrogen and other forms of energy storage. Nuclear plants (as you know) are most efficient when running at 100%, providing “base load” to “the grid.” Electrical demand, is not constant. It would be stupid to attempt to build enough generating capacity to supply “peak load” when you can store energy at times of lower demand to be dispatched at times of higher demand. We’ve known this for decades. That’s why New York built the Blenheim–Gilboa Hydroelectric Power Station in 1973 and why we’re still using it today. Another approach for dispatchable power is natural gas “peaker plants."
Energy storage is also useful for making “renewables” more practical. I purchase solar power credits from a farm with batteries for dispatchable grid power. Battery technology has advanced significantly in the half century since “Blenheim–Gilboa” came on-line.
But there is much more to energy use than just the electrical grid. Obviously, we have vehicles. Passenger cars, buses, freight trucks, trains and even airplanes. None of these are especially well suited to nuclear power. Today, they are primarily powered by petroleum (it’s tough to beat the energy/volume ratio of liquid fuels.) Cars can be powered by batteries, for larger vehicles, hydrogen becomes more practical. Hydrogen can also be combined with other elements to produce heavier fuels, for higher energy/volume ratios. The massive freight ships plying our oceans might be well suited for nuclear power, just as aircraft carriers have been for decades, or they can burn “electrofuels” like “green ammonia” produced using “green hydrogen."
We also have isolated facilities which need reliable power (something solar panels and batteries can provide.) We figured this out decades ago as well. I remember the first time I saw a road sign with an attached solar panel. Small isolated villages can be powered in the same way.
Your "nothing but nukes" zealotry is no more rational than “no-nukes” zealotry.
= new reply since forum marked as read