Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear paired with pumped hydro is very flexible, being able to handle peaks at any time. It's also very reliable, since the vast majority of outages are scheduled, and the plant's output can be increased or decreased to ensure there is enough surplus to store enough energy to meet expected peak demand. It also uses much less land and material resources, and results in less waste, substantially reducing damage to th…
Most of this is false, if you're trying to imply solar plus hydro is worse than nuclear and hydro. Taking them in order: Demand is higher during the day. solar matches this better than the flat production of nuclear, so less storage per watt of production is needed for cheap solar energy when used to pump hydro storage, and even non pumped hydro can be varied to complement solar production and demand needs (within ce…
In the case of an existing nuclear power plant it does. Because if you shut it down, the plant is still going to be there, except that it won't produce anything.
California has been building solar like crazy for the last 5 years if not more. Nobody is saying stop building solar. Nobody is even saying build nuclear. The only thing this proposal is saying is don't shut down a very large existing nuclear power plant, at least not until we get to carbon neutral.
If you are suggesting that somehow by shutting down this power plant you can get faster to net zero, then we're all very eager to hear the details.