>Also, nuclear is expensive compared with renewables As I said above, nuclear is not more expensive than renewables if you are looking at functional grid witho

>Also, nuclear is expensive compared with renewables As I said above, nuclear is not more expensive than renewables if you are looking at functional grid without coal and natural gas. Solar and wind are both intermittent and variable. They vary greatly, both over an individual 24-hour period, and seasonally throughout the year. In order to build a grid that was able to meet demand consistently and reliably, you would have to massively overbuild renewables so they were able to meet peek demand, and deal with the issue of huge load shedding during times of overproduction. See section 5 and 6 of [1] for a study of what it would take to reach 80% and 100% renewables for California. To reach 0% fossil fuels, a total of about 7GW of nuclear power ( the equivalent of 4 Diablo Canyon plants) would reduce needed solar and wind by 11.5GW (the equivalent of over 5 million turbines) and solar by 5.7GW (the equivalent of 1.8 million rooftop systems). When you only need 40% the capacity, even double the cost is cheaper. And of course there is the diminishing returns of building turbines in the best locations and solar on the best roofs, and still needing to build millions more. And this is just one state. >I think you misread my comment I did. You said "They used to love talking about how expensive and unreliable and unsafe it is." and the "it is" led me to believe you were talking about the singular nuclear and not the multiple renewables. [1] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/HosteFinalDraft.pdf https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/Comb...