Storage is cheap and getting cheaper. Storage cost is plummeting faster than solar or wind ever did. But until we have enough renewable overcapacity to meet de

Storage is cheap and getting cheaper. Storage cost is plummeting faster than solar or wind ever did. But until we have enough renewable overcapacity to meet demand and also charge up storage, any storage built out would sit empty. You get far more generating capacity for the dollar from renewables than any other means, so that is the obvious place to put money just now. When the time for it does come, the storage will be radically cheaper. Just now, the utility-scale iron-air battery factories are under construction, to be ready for that time. There are dozens of other energy storage options. All of them work, so the only uncertainty is which will end up cheapest, or most useful. Synthetic ammonia and hydrogen have the advantage that they are exportable, so 100% of your overcapacity after filling local tankage generates revenue, an advantage over other modes. California has dozens (hundreds?) of existing high-altitude reservoirs that could be used cheaply for pumped hydro with minor retrofits. California is very aggressively adding renewable generation capacity to displace fossil fuel, so the accusation of "not interested" falls flat. Nukes are not being "forced" down: Diablo Canyon, e.g., will cost $2B to refurbish, but that $2B would pay for more renewable power than Diablo Canyon could produce, and then Diablo Canyon would continue sucking down money to operate that solar would not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Fallacy_effect