> This is kind of silly. Yes, nuclear is more expensive than wind, but this is irrelevant because (as the article also acknowledges) you can't replace nuclear w

> This is kind of silly. Yes, nuclear is more expensive than wind, but this is irrelevant because (as the article also acknowledges) you can't replace nuclear with wind, you need something that works when the wind is not blowing. But, nobody cares! See, because there's not a single party responsible for everything with sane priorities. People will build wind because it makes a profit. People won't build nuclear because it doesn't. This will keep going until you end up with a heavily wind-powered system that lacks stability, but nobody building plants will care about that. Eventually power goes out, and solutions will be sought, but nuclear still won't be profitable. One possible solution is overbuilding. Have lots of wind and solar. Another solution is interconnection -- maybe half the power gets burned in transmission losses, but if you need it, you need it. And probably there will be a lot more interest in grid storage.