> Given that most renewables average around 25-40% capacity factor when working well, 65% during a maintenance period is a pretty good thing! Not if it's corre

> Given that most renewables average around 25-40% capacity factor when working well, 65% during a maintenance period is a pretty good thing! Not if it's correlated, takes months, and is unplanned. And each reactor takes 5-10x as much money and resources as the same gross power. Noone builds a utility solar plant claiming it will produce nameplate wattage at night. Nuclear is always sold as if it has 90-100% availability. > The USA already generates 20% of it's electricity from nuclear power. 10% of global electricity generation is through nuclear power. Recycling alone would reclaim enough fissile material to offset the increase in generation. Where are you getting the figure for 40x increases in uranium production? The reality is 5-10x at most - probably less than that because nuclear electric power isn't the only application of uranium. You need to load your reactors. Bringing them online takes around 6 years of fuel -- an AP 1000 takes 100t of enriched Uranium. Your 800GW-1.2TW (minimum required to meet peak electric loads without storage, but does not touch other energy) of reactors in the US will require a 700, tonnes of natural uranium. A single fuel load for enough PWRs to make all electricity 100% nuclear world wide will require all known reserves. This is including reprocessing (MOX only gives you 15% or so more). Then you still have the other 60% of primary energy to cover. The nuclear industry has never been at the same scale as the current lithium battery and renewable industry. And it cannot be at the same scale because it is limited by critical resource reserves -- not just a temporary limitation on extraction of a critical resource for one possible chemistry. Just matching the scale of the existing industry by installing 50GW/yr (which you've asserted is 2% of what's needed) requires doubling uranium mining.