[rhodozelia]

>If you ran your entire grid on just solar and wind, no nuclear, or coal or natural gas peaker plants, you'll find that wind and solar is no longer cheap, and is much less resilient to exceptional circumstances. >That kind of is my point: countries are doing this and without blackouts and it's actually fine.

A system that can meet the demand with an increasingly higher percentage of non dispatchable wind and solar needs some plan B for when it is night time and there is no wind. Or it is cloudy and not windy for days. It can be batteries but there is a cost to that too. Any place with a high share of non dispatchable generation tends to either have good interconnections to their neighbors who have firm power supplies, or they have their own natural gas or diesel generation, but there is a cost to having that sitting around too.

I’m fine with cost for nuclear, for batteries, for over building wind and solar, and for nat gas used as a backup for that weather system that moves in once a year that would otherwise result In a blackout. cost is just a number in a ledger somewhere.

The energy supply should come from diverse sources and nuclear is a good part of that solution.