If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.

I’d suggest lets focus on the topic of capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here and one that needs to be cleared for the whole topic to make any sense.

While I couldn’t track down a primary ressource for the graph you provided, I’m assuming it’s based on data from the United States, that is also presented here (admittedly in a much more cumbersome way): https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/

You can find capacity factors here: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=table_6_07_b (And in the similar table focussing on fossil power)

While that might not be the exact source for the diagram you provided, the numbers come close enough, that I’d say it suffices as a base for discussion.

The PDF containing technical notes explains, how capacity factor is being calculated. See p. 21 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/pdf/AppendixC.pdf

Now I haven’t had time to look into the data more, but my main criticism about using that data is, that all it does (and checking the source and methodology here just confimed my view here) is tell you about how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?

I’d like to leave it here for the time being. I felt like I have to adress the bit about needing energy sources with a lower capacity factor, to go along with renewables, that was very poor wording on my part. But I feel like I’d derail the discussion, so I’ll explain myself later on.

I don’t think that graphic shows what you’re trying to say. Or is at least a very bad choice to support your argument. A lower capicity factor just means, that wind and solar are fluctuating energy sources. Nobody’s denying that.
I don’t even want to avoid nuclear like the plague or anything, I do get the appeal. But, as your graphic underlines, it is a rather very constant energy source, which means, that it doesn’t pair very well with fluctuating sources like solar and wind.

Since your not from the US, I’m gonna forget about that example for the time being, and concede, that there might be smaller national grids, that would indeed suffer more extremly from a lack of wind/solar inputs. But nuclear still isn’t a good fit then, because you’d actually need energy generation with a lower capacity factor, which can react to the fluctuating demand and generation in the grid.

Batteries are only one option here.

As for sodium batteries: yes they may be feasible, but will it also be for an entire planet? Do you honestly think that it won’t also take decades to get the resources, build new factories and produce millions of batteries?

You use salt at all? That’s Sodium-Chloride. The resources are abundant, easily available and are already being extracted for other purposes in large quantities.
So, yes, I think they will be feasible for the entire planet and it won’t take decades to get the resources and build infrastructure to make them. The technology isn’t all that different from other batteries, they can use existing infrastructure.

I don’t have time to write more, right now, but I hope you can see some of the issues here.

The point is that the greenhouse gases that they emit have already been captured from the atmosphere, which makes them carbon neutral.

I’m on board with the rest of your argument, but that’s a very reductionist way to look at things. The concern with biofuel usage is, that there is inevitably going to be methane emissions, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. So the zero sum game doesn’t really apply here.

On top of that, it’s comparatively inefficient, among other issues.

I wouldn’t bet on biomass to play a large role in a carbon neutral energy system.

I’m assuming you’re from the USA.
You already mentioned an electric grid for an entire country and that’s a solution right in front of you. It is very very very unlikely that no sun will shine and no wind will blow in your entire country at the same time.

You don’t really need base load power as much as nuclear proponents think you would. If you have a large enough, functioning grid, with well distributed renewable energy generation, these fluctuations can be compensated for.

Of course, batteries can help and make things easier. But you don’t even need to mine lithium for these anymore. Sodium batteries are already being used and that is an abundant resource. They have lower energy denity than lithium-batteries, which makes them less suitable for electric cars, but that’s not really a big issue for grid storage batteries. Also you don’t need centralized massive battery plants, a decentralized system with smaller battery stations can work just as well, if not better. So, backup batteries for an entire counry aren’t even as inconceivable as you may think.

And that’s all technology that’s already being used and doesn’t need a decade of planning to get a single powerplant up and running.

It’s not economical, but profitable.

The revenue goes to the companies while the cost is paid for by the tax payers.

German chiming in as well, we call the onions “rote Zwiebeln” and red cabbage is Rotkohl.

Which language are you referring to? And what is the cultural importance of these vegetables in the area where it’s spoken?