Solar is cheap. Wind is cheap. They're cheap like cheaper than continuing to run existing coal plants, even without subsidies. And the costs are dropping rapidl

Solar is cheap. Wind is cheap. They're cheap like cheaper than continuing to run existing coal plants, even without subsidies. And the costs are dropping rapidly, especially for solar. Meanwhile, nuclear is expensive. Like $6B to $8B per GW capacity. If we throw a big pile of money at the problem, we get more bang for our buck from renewables. And, since wind and solar are on cost learning curves such that the more we build the cheaper it gets, the money we throw at wine and solar gets multiplied in the future by private industry. Wind construction is fast. Solar construction is incredibly fast. Nuclear construction takes 8-15 years. Renewables also require batteries and transmission. Batteries are getting cheap too, having dropped 89% in price since 2010. Transmission is a bit more politically tricky, but I think it's doable. We might be able to get the US grid to 40% renewables by 2030. I doubt we'll have more than 5 GW of additional nuclear capacity in the US by 2030. The revolution will be well underway before nuclear can get its boots on.