Sure you can. Personally, I view the fossil fuel plants differently than nuclear, I would much prefer that the majority of steady state power generation was nuc

Sure you can. Personally, I view the fossil fuel plants differently than nuclear, I would much prefer that the majority of steady state power generation was nuclear, but that does present quite a target and threat to the rest of the world during a time of war. I don’t have all the answers here, just wanted to start with my thinking. Getting away from fossil fuels is not a pie in the sky proposal these days. You could look at the success of the lithium storage battery in Australia, previously serviced by fossil fuel peaker plants. There is pumped hydro, and all manner of other non-chemical storage that is possible. There are certainly a range of options that are 100% renewable with storage, but at this moment don’t compete on price with natural gas or even coal if you only factor the cost of the input to the system. Can we agree on that? I would say the inexpensive nature of fossil fuels ignores the total cost of the fuel. We’re basically setting up future generations for a complicated terraforming process to recover the atmosphere to something that supports our farming needs and temperature needs to support life, not just our own but the natural world we rely on. This cost might not factor in to the per/MW cost of coal or NG, but it should. This is factored into nuclear (waste storage) so to ignore its cost for fossil fuels is disingenuous.