There is broad consensus amongs experts. With recent improvements in renewables, renewable positive people have said "we now think 100% wind, solar, battery is

There is broad consensus amongs experts. With recent improvements in renewables, renewable positive people have said "we now think 100% wind, solar, battery is feasible" after a few years of saying 80% renewables is doable and the last 20% is tricky and people less enthusiastic about renewables are saying "we're still thinking that having 10-20% nuclear might work out slightly cheaper". Even countries like France and Japan which are very nuclear positive, are not talking about 100% nuclear and have aggressive renewable rollouts planned: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-renewables-growth-falling-below-targets-report-says-2023-01-24/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-renewables-g... The extreme anti-renewable, pro-nuclear opinions you find on HN are bizarre and nonsensical. They're basically remnants of climate change denial. edit: for example this is a summary from 2017 where they're nervously optimistic about getting to 100% but are fairly confident about getting to 60% https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034... > Again, it’s all about balancing out VRE. The easiest way to do that is with fast, flexible natural gas plants, but you can’t get past around 60 percent decarbonization with a large fleet of gas plants running. Getting to 80 percent or beyond means closing or idling lots of those plants. So you need other balancing options.