Very convenient way to reduce the number by 66% so your argument has an opportunity to survive. If you NEED 1 MW, you also NEED 1 MW for backup from a differen

Very convenient way to reduce the number by 66% so your argument has an opportunity to survive. If you NEED 1 MW, you also NEED 1 MW for backup from a different source. It can be solar or wind 300 miles away, where, perhaps, the weather is different. Yet, you still need 100% backup. You are all so focused on having a verbally violent argument that you cannot help but deflect with tangential issues and fail any attempt to try to understand and be understood. There, I just gave you the perfect refutation to my suggestion of using nuclear for backup. Use solar or wind from a few hundred miles away. Perfectly doable? In principle, yes. It requires analysis but it does sound plausible. I'll give you another refutation to challenge a claim that nuclear power is the solution: While the technology has gotten better and we can build better reactors, hell will freeze over before we build a few more reactors in the US, much less hundreds. A case of "Yeah, that's great. You just can't build them. Ever". There, that's how you try to have a conversation with someone if you care to actually have one from a basis of respect and the potential of mutual edification. I am so sick of people who use online conversations as free-for-all confrontational battlegrounds. Nobody learns anything other than who might be the biggest jerk or who subscribes to the same mob. This "conversation" is over.