I think I came out a little strong and biased here. My apologies. Some more thoughts on this article. - They group nukes in the clean %, so today we're at 37%

I think I came out a little strong and biased here. My apologies. Some more thoughts on this article. - They group nukes in the clean %, so today we're at 37% clean already. not bad. Going to higher clean % with mix of wind/solar expansion + new storage + dispatchable nukes is very possible and the political momentum to throw a lot of money at this is there. - I think it's unlikely costs can be reduced much in most parts of the US if we still want 100% dispatch capability. - It's not just about cost. We should consider paying a bit more for carbon considerations, within reason and without forgetting who gets punished by higher prices in the short term, and without compromising the 100% dispatchable standard. - Wind/solar LCOE is approaching very low numbers, so it should be used as much as possible, but we shouldn't throw a trillion dollars from the government, as the article suggests, to shove wind/solar down the grid's throat. It's likely to break the grid and waste a load of money. Government should just ensure the markets can properly deal with higher renewables without compromising the grid. They can do this via establishing capacity markets, resiliency markets, R&D for storage tech, etc. They might also do a carbon tax to try to set the higher cost we are willing to pay from above. - There are significant resilience, material, and regulation challenges. It's not just the energy storage for a few hours, but longer term for days and weeks. If we are a responsible society and expect smooth operations and we want to do an extreme renewables expansion, we need to pay the price to keep an idle fleet of fully dispatchable gas/nukes in addition to the renewables fleet or establish multi month storage.