[2trill2spill]

I think your missing the point of the above poster. Why get rid of nuclear power until its replaced with some other non carbon polluting source? It just raises the amount of co2 going into the atmosphere. If all renewable energy grids work, great. But don't replace nuclear with fossil fuels, like California, Vermont and many others have done.

[epistasis]

No matter when the nuclear is shut off, it's going to cause an instantaneous uptick in fossil usage, because that's the dispatchable power we use. Even if you plug in an extra 4GW of solar/wind to the grid before you turn off the nuclear, the event of turning off the nuclear reactor will still make it look like fossil fuel have replaced it. (That is, until storage becomes the dispatchable replacement not only for peaker plants, but also for open cycle or combined cycle natural gas).

The event that is precipitating CA's shutdown has been planned for more than a decade. And the cost of keeping the nuclear plant would be $7B-$14B, before any of the inevitable cost increases that accompany large construction projects. $7B for solar and storage will easily replace nuclear. At $1/W for solar, and $250/kWh for storage, $7B will buy 4GW of solar and 12 GWh of storage, and cost overruns are unheard of for solar and storage installations.

[asdff]

For solar that would be at least $7b every 25-30 years, no?

[epistasis]

Well $7B now, and a fraction of that in 25-30 years to replace the aging panels and batteries. (I think 12-15 years is a common battery warranty for grid batteries with daily cycling, but why might fall even further in price in 15 years than solar).

The nuclear plant that is shutting down is already at the end of its original license, and the $7B of work would be for 20 years or less of nuclear.