> Solar + wind will be the cheapest, and will make up the bulk of primary production. But they won’t replace coal, natural gas, oil and nukes Replacement isn't

> Solar + wind will be the cheapest, and will make up the bulk of primary production. But they won’t replace coal, natural gas, oil and nukes Replacement isn't binary, though. What I want is to go like 80-90% solar+wind immediately by following Denmark model but with addition of solar & overbuilding & inter-country sharing. The last-mile is made up of natural gas until cheaper storage tech is invented. Nuclear can get you to 100% but you have to look at AUC of emissions from now until the future, which is potentially worse for nuclear because it takes longer to build, not to mention the higher financial cost of getting there. If you really want to make a purely climate argument, you could even say that with the money you save by not going nuclear, you can subsidize renewables in poor countries. Two countries with ~60%+ renewables can be better than one country with 100% nuclear. Notwithstanding the AUC emissions benefit of renewables that I describe above.