I see. You make a claim, and your argument is "you haven't proved me wrong". Classic crank behavior.
You then back it up with the transparently nonsensical argument that "the sun doesn't shine at night." Batteries exist, you know.
You made the claim renewables require indefinite use of fossil fuels, you show your reasoning. An argument that ignores the existence of storage is not an argument, it's insulting verbal vomit.
No, batteries do not exist. Just like solar technology wasn't developed to a point where it was barely useful until relatively recently, battery technology is no where near what is required for any national grid. That's why there is a fundamental dependence on fossil fuels, and why there isn't a single country who can depend on wind or solar. Because there is no way to store that energy.
The only countries with a successful secondary fallback are those who use geothermal or hydro, with the latter being opposed by the same environmentalists who oppose nuclear. Not every country has geothermal energy, nor do most countries have hydro, and most of the countries with either of those don't have enough to power their grid. The only ones that do have no real manufacturing. The issue is front and center: the ones that need it the most are the ones who are unable to utilize it.
In the interim, until meaningful storage exists, it's the 'environmentalist' anti-nuclear crowd who have plunged the world into chaos and contributed to endless destruction of the planet. The world is still using fossil fuels because the world has no alternative other than nuclear.
There needs to be a stepping stone - and that stepping stone is nuclear. Until then, the stepping stone is oil, coal and gas. Which means Middle Eastern wars, environmental destruction and fracking. Dealing with whatever fallout that comes from nuclear, with room for those who can't support nuclear to use fossil fuels, while the rest of the world figures out a real way forward on how to collect and store solar and wind is the only path forward.
