Oh don't forget the other issue: It takes decades to build a new plant. We don't got that time.
For the $6 Billion or more it takes to build a nuclear plant that will then take 15 to 20 years to license and build before it generates a single Watt, we could have had a $6 Billion of solar and wind deployed and operating for 12+ years already.
No, it doesn't. It only takes a few years. What takes decades is resolving all the NIMBY lawsuits.
A PV field, on the other hand, is much simpler, with much more inherent redundancy, and can tolerate construction mistakes without either safety implications or substantial loss of capacity.
Olkiluoto 1 and 2 were both built quickly and on schedule. Mainly because they were already proven designs with tens of other units already built around the world (and the second reactor is practically identical with the first one)
The second exact same one is actually Flamanville 3, the other one with the massive cost overruns.
By the time we build expertise it will be 2080. And all that capital will be tied up until then. Who even knows if fission will be the right tool then.
I'm pretty sure they have no NIMBY lawsuits to content with, so this seems like a realistic timeframe.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#China
The things that cool the planet are mostly white — reflective. Clouds, white roofs, etc.
Trees cool their local area by performing endothermic reactions creating carbohydrates and lignans.
Let's not forget shade. How much are they cooling the air above them?
Though most of that would be evaporation, not chemistry.
Plus most electricty/energy that isn't stored somehow gets converted into heat. That's just how the universe works.
If you capture some energy with your solar panel just to immediately release ~100% of it as heat again because you power your servers with it, you didn't accomplish anything.