I don't think your assessment is correct on any of the particulars. Building lots of renewables and storage is eminently practical. It's happening every day, g

I don't think your assessment is correct on any of the particulars. Building lots of renewables and storage is eminently practical. It's happening every day, getting cheaper every day, and is scaling unbelievably fast. Constructing new nuclear, however, is not practical or economical. And it's not because of politicians or environmentalists. It's because Westinghouse, utilities, and contractors can't do it. And it's exactly the same story in France, with undeniably friendly politics and regulation. There's an important deeper issue here about advanced economies. Construction productivity, when compared to the massive increase in manufacturing productivity, is pretty much constant. So we can either apply our finite and limited construction capacity to building more factories, and exponentially increasing our productivity, or we can apply it to constructing nuclear plants, and get only linear gains in energy out of our construction efforts. The one way around that is SMRs, maybe, but they far less proven tech than lithium ion batteries, which are far more proven and practical. Technologically, we have progressed beyond the big nuclear reactors from half a century ago. They are a monument to the age, like the intricate woodwork on Victorian houses, but never to be created again by advanced economies. The economies that are able to build nuclear are those that are about at the stage of the US in the 70s and 80s: China and Russia. Maaaaaybe South Korea. But the value of their labor force per hour may soon advance beyond the point where it makes sense for them to continue to build nuclear. The future of energy is manufactured: wind, solar, and battery storage.