> First let me dispatch this "existing grid NOW and nuclear provides that" - it's a 7 year average lead time as of 2022; solar is 2. Nuclear can certainly be m

> First let me dispatch this "existing grid NOW and nuclear provides that" - it's a 7 year average lead time as of 2022; solar is 2. Nuclear can certainly be made quicker if we had the political will to do so but I'm not going to try to argue that it's quick. That said, if we would have invested in this 20 years ago like we should have it wouldn't have been a problem. The argument has been "wind & solar are going to ramp up so quickly in the near future so why build nuclear?" and then it takes longer than we thought and underwhelming progress is made. Regardless of how long it takes: > The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now. > It's also expandable and upgradable and you can start producing after the first station is done. Your 2022 nuclear reactor will still be based on 2022 technology in 2072. The solar farm, however, will be current with the times as the parts are swappable. This argument doesn't really make sense. You can't add reactors to a nuclear plant? Or retrofit them as needed? The primary form of generating all forms of electric other than photovoltaics uses steam to spin a turbine; that's the same now as it was 100+ years ago. Who cares if it's 2022 technology in 2072 if it's producing useful electricity? I'm sure solar panels have some runway to the technology, but that's not the point here. Solar currently does not have the ability to drop into the existing grid with large scale, on-demand energy nor will it in the foreseeable future. It's a slice of the energy pie, but to say that it's going to improve so much doesn't mean it's a wise idea to put all your eggs in that basket.