The 20% of nuclear assumption for solar is based on the presumed output of nuclear being 90% since supposedly it can run 24/7/365, only down for maintenance. This has been broadly disputed however. France’s nuclear power, for instance, typically has a capacity factor of around 77% (Renewable Energy Institute).
Having said that, we are going to continue with the assumption as first stated. At the assumed 20% of nuclear and that the average nuclear plant produces 1 GW of electricity as its output (EIA), 599 GW + 662 GW = 1261 GW of solar newly installed. 20% of 1261 GW would equal about 252 equivalent nuclear GW, and that would be equivalent to 252 nuke plants of solar installed in the last 2 years.
Another thing to think about is that solar being 20% of a nuclear equivalent, doesn’t take into account for the 30+ GW of utility-scale battery storage capacity that will be installed in 2024 in the US, and another 30 GW in 2025 (EIA). Batteries, unlike solar, are 1 to 1 when compared to nuclear output. Currently batteries take in the mid-day over capacity of solar electricity generation that would be curtailed otherwise. (Curtailing means shut off) So, when you add batteries into the mix you should add the two 30 GW of battery added in 2024 and 2025. That would be adding 60 GW, which would be equal to adding 60 nuclear power plants to the 252 GW of solar above.
So, in conclusion, in the last two years the United States will have added the equivalent of 312 nuclear power plants. Let that sink in, the equivalent of 312 nuclear power plants in just 2 years! Something that simply can’t be done going with nuclear alone.
