Do other renewables have the same capacity as new nuclear? I had thought this was a sticking point.

It only takes so long and costs so much because of the over regulation and red tape.

Nuclear is a backup power for when renewables fail. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine.

> It takes too long to get a plant up and running

In 2030, people will still be against building new nuclear plants because it takes 10 years to build.

Yeah, that was my first thought, about the argument against building new nuclear plants.

Opponents: "Yeah, in theory nuclear is better, but it's just too expensive and would take too long to scale up compared to the timetable of global warming, so it's not a viable option."

Also opponents: "Shut down existing plants, where that money/time cost has already been paid."

> I am not bullish on new nuclear. It takes too long to get a plant up and running, and from a cost perspective renewables are cheaper today and will only continue to get cheaper over time. Plus, no risk of irradiating a city.

All valid points, and I'm less anti-nuclear now more than I am anti-20th Century Nuclear these days. Still, I too see the net benefit for renewables to increase it's ~33% Market share over the years in CA. It's incredibly foolish how little CA has spent in water reclamation and aggressively expanding renewable energy given it's ROI to the entire grid.

> That being said, decommissioning existing nuclear plants instead of doing whatever investment needed to keep them running is astonishing.

I's not astonishing, and you should really understand the nature of how corrupt, incompetent, and myopic the NRC are. Look no further than Mitsubishi's and SoCal Edison's handling of San Onofre Nuclear Power plant.

I lived through it and that along with how TEPCO/Nuclear Village/Edo Government poorly handled Fuksuhima in 2011 it became clear that this technology, while holding a great deal of promise is simply not regulated or managed properly and that in it's current state could not continue to be allowed to operate without posing an immense risk given it's location along the San Andrea's fault line. You know, that active seismic area that every Californian has been told will eventually create the next 'big one' that will make Northridge look like a Sunday picnic?

While I do not like the idea of activating more fossil fuel based plants, it's with the understanding that we will never be 100% on renewable as the challenges of storage and 24H capacity will always require to have a source for base load energy during inclement and unfavorable weather.

The goal is to keep the fossil fuel based plant active while renewable continue to grow.

the west has lost nay will to do things more than Q calls away. I really hope coruption and maoism will broke china from the inside or we will be fucked

Renewables may be cheaper to build, maintain, and decommission but the problem is sometimes the sun doesn't shine and there is no wind. We would have to build storage which is expensive and hope we get enough sun and wind before we run out of what we stored. Why not also use nuclear which doesn't have any of those problems? Sure it maybe more expensive but it is reliable.