> If safe nuke plants could be built without pervasive (wholly legal!) corruption, 3GW in 3 years for $3B, I might be all for it. But I don't know any way to ge

> If safe nuke plants could be built without pervasive (wholly legal!) corruption, 3GW in 3 years for $3B, I might be all for it. But I don't know any way to get there. About double that cost and 50% greater timeframe is doable, IMO, with a greater emphasis on nuclear as part of the solution. Looking at California: right now we have about 20GW demand sustained overnight in excess of our 1.3GW of wind power. If you got 6GW of additional nuclear in there over our existing 2GW, and tripled wind... it looks a lot more tractable (but still very hard) to meet the remaining 10GW with storage. At the very least, our hydroelectric resources could be stretched much further, which makes the rest of the problem easier. And, of course-- that 10 / 20GW can be expected to go up, a lot: - We are phasing out natural gas heating, so we're going to have a lot more resistive and heat pump heat than before. - Vehicle electrification.