> 100 billion you spend on something is a 100 billion you can't spend on something else. It's the basic definition of opportunity cost. I agree on principle, e

> 100 billion you spend on something is a 100 billion you can't spend on something else. It's the basic definition of opportunity cost. I agree on principle, except it doesn't matter because that logic is respected at all by modern international monetary policy. > The promise of nuclear was unlimited energy for almost free. I'm not sure who was suggesting that, but it was always wrong. > The last bastion is can we run a grid on 100% renewables According to? > renewables have been dismissed for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% of total grid and the critics were proven wrong every time No and no. Renewables have their place but they have not proven to be able to support the grid on their own the way that deposit forms of energy do. This is entirely self evident. No one would be advocating for nuclear if solar and wind were a viable alternative to fossil fuel. Solar technology has been around for over half a century and its efficiency pales in contrast to internal combustion. Even the Stirling engine is more efficient (but was abandoned because its use in solar poses a danger to birds). They have to be able to make a profit, and they can't do that without having society as a group pay for them through policy.