There's a weird sociological phenomenon where people declare that "renewables won't get us there" without any real justification.
A recently announced deal in California would build out solar for $20/MWh compared to your $200/MWh nuclear worst case. Renewables can and will get us 90% of the way there. I recognize that a renewables based grid will require massive investments in grid infrastructure, which are long overdue anyway, as well as eventually storage/batteries, which is still on an exponential cost reduction curve. Bbut given the massive cost difference of generation, that would still be a dramatic net benefit.
Particularly when nuclear plants take a decade to build compared to a year for a solar plant.
I get that nuclear is cool, particularly fusion, but I really don't understand this "renewables won't get us there" argument beyond that.
A recently announced deal in California would build out solar for $20/MWh compared to your $200/MWh nuclear worst case. Renewables can and will get us 90% of the way there. I recognize that a renewables based grid will require massive investments in grid infrastructure, which are long overdue anyway, as well as eventually storage/batteries, which is still on an exponential cost reduction curve. Bbut given the massive cost difference of generation, that would still be a dramatic net benefit.
Particularly when nuclear plants take a decade to build compared to a year for a solar plant.
I get that nuclear is cool, particularly fusion, but I really don't understand this "renewables won't get us there" argument beyond that.