[fdschoeneman]

That seems like a circular argument. Solar and storage are cheaper because of massive subsidies, they don't adequately account for externalities like the environmental impact of lithium mining, and benefit from streamlined zoning and aggressive variances. Nuclear is expensive and takes a long time to stand up at least in part because the state doesn't favor it.

The state can absolutely reduce costs and speed up plant construction in a way that is safe, and which is less vulnerable to bad weather, and which does not create as many energy storage problems.

Pursue wind and solar at the same time if you like, but the math climate scientists claim to understand requires them to also push for an immediate and massive expansion of nuclear.

I find it suspicious that they do not, and that they never have.