I just pulled info from this table (1) to understand better the importance of keeping nuclear plants going as we transition away from fossil fuels. There are so

I just pulled info from this table (1) to understand better the importance of keeping nuclear plants going as we transition away from fossil fuels. There are some interesting notes. Only 17 states have more than 50% of their power generated without fossil fuels. Among these (Vermont with a whopping 99.8%, good job!). Most of these states have one major source of power (>40%) (except Maine). Some examples are hydro electric (WA, ID, WT, OR, SD, MT), Wind (IA, KS), Natural Gas (CA, NY), and Nuclear (NH, IL, SC, TN, NJ, MD). This is not good analysis, but it helped me think a little bit about where we're at and how nuclear can help. It seems that today, nuclear is vitally important among states that can't generate power due to geographic constraints, while hydro is significant for the West, Wind for the midwest, and we should shame California and New York for holding on to natural gas production. Something else of note, the states with the most solar generation (CA, NV, DC, MA) all use natural gas as their primary energy source. It would behoove them to build more nukes, and fewer solar farms. (1) https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-generation-fuel-shares https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-g...