Renewables are riding on the shoulders of a gigantic fossil-powered grid that (usually) handles their intermittency for them for free. When you deeply decarboni

Renewables are riding on the shoulders of a gigantic fossil-powered grid that (usually) handles their intermittency for them for free. When you deeply decarbonize with intermittent energy sources you have to add in new costs: storage, new transmission, smart loads. These costs add $40-60/MWh of electricity, which brings the actual system cost right up to the cost of nuclear today. So nuclear is already economic with any other decarbonized grid. Related info in [1]. [1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.006 "No solution to the waste" is a myth [2]. The waste is stored in dry casks which have never injured a soul. Meanwhile combustion waste from fossil and renewable biofuel kills 8 million/yr [3]. [2] https://whataboutthewaste.com https://whataboutthewaste.com [3] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution Yes, by those numbers, fossil and biofuel kill the same number of people every single week than have ever been attributed to nuclear accidents in the history of the industry. Plus nuclear solves climate change. If fossil and renewable biofuel had to pay insurance for climate change, we'd be building nuclear like crazy. Also, wind turbines kill large raptors and migratory bats, not songbirds.