> Because we need a lot of energy and fast to scrub all that CO2 gas, coal&oil threw and are still throwing into the atmosphere. Nuclear power plants have lead

> Because we need a lot of energy and fast to scrub all that CO2 gas, coal&oil threw and are still throwing into the atmosphere. Nuclear power plants have lead times of about 10 years or more, so if we need more now (as in this or next year) nuclear power plants are not the answer. There are wind turbines with 10 to 15 MW from Siemens-Ganesha, Vestas and some other corporations, available now. Those do not need a lead time of ten+ years with huge initial investment and permanent high security and waste management overhead like new nuclear power plant do. 75 of those replace one nuclear plant block, as most of those output ~1 GW. > Also because we need baseline power for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shinning. Wind turbine towers have heights of 100 to 250 m, there wind is not as restricted as at ground level, at least if not in very mountainous regions and rather steady. No wind is just not a thing in the atmosphere at that level, albeit too much wind can happen in storms. For the theoretical no wind and the more real, but not frequent, too much wind you can use power storage and load management, which needs to be (and is already) implemented anyway. Same for sun, albeit not shining can be a real problem there. Now, Lithium or soon also NaCl batteries, to Pumped-storage hydroelectricity to storing energy mechanically are all great but just help for very short to a day or so, what do for the rest? Well, the problem for too much wind (or the hypothetical no wind) is always local to a few 100 km radius, continental Europe (for example) has huge in-sync grids with a bunch of 360 kV AC or 10+ kV DC interconnects to move around 100s of GW for a reason, so just take it from somewhere else (often things even cancel out).