A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

You have to really try hard to make renewables and nuclear enemies, but a lot of money has been spent on that as it became more obvious that renewables were a good idea and a threat to fossil fuels. I've noticed a recent trend where people attack roof mounted solar because it's so much worse than utility solar. Utility solar is just replacing nuclear in the argument as people get wise to the scam and they need to update the message to slow down the fossil fuel phase out by pointing out that "this isn't perfect, do something else" in the hope that they won't do the something else.

For me nuclear is in the same boat as tidal, geothermal or CSP. Cool tech, but entirely on cost, wind and solar are going to dominate energy production in the future so at best a bit player.

Luckily nearly every single other policy supports tidal, CSP and nuclear just as much as it supports solar and wind. Electric vehicles? Can run on nuclear electricity. Green Hydrogen? can be made with nuclear electricity (technically called Pink Hydrogen). Heat pumps? Can be run with nuclear electricity. Carbon taxes? Don't apply to nuclear as it's low carbon. Air pollution controls? Don't apply to nuclear as it's low pollution. Insulation? Makes it easier to use heat pumps, powered by nuclear power. Time of use pricing? Traditionally used exactly for nuclear power. Demand response? Keeps nuclear running at it's peak efficiency. Battery storage peakers? Can time shift nuclear generated electricity. Believing in climate change? Great opportunity for nuclear, lots of people in the climate change community supported it as part of solution, before wind and solar plummetted in price.

> At the end of 2008, James Hansen stated five priorities that he felt then President-elect Barack Obama should adopt "for solving the climate and energy problems, while stimulating the economy": efficient energy use, renewable energy, a smart grid, generation IV nuclear reactors and carbon capture and storage. Regarding nuclear, he expressed opposition to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, stating that the $25 Billion (US) surplus held in the Nuclear Waste Fund "should be used to develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste, and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste."[96]

> In 2009, Hansen wrote an open letter to President Obama where he advocated a "Moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2".[93] In his first book Storms of My Grandchildren, similarly, Hansen discusses his Declaration of Stewardship, the first principle of which requires "a moratorium on coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester carbon dioxide

So disagreeing on nuclear vs renewables is very minor in the big scheme of things. He was wrong about carbon capture and storage for the same reason, renewables got cheap enough that it no longer made financial sense to do on a large scale.

If you don't believe the wind and solar costs, then obviously you'd come to other conclusions, but you'd be wrong. Just as if you thought tidal or geothermal was going to be as big as solar and wind. But in places where tidal or geothermal makes sense, all the other policies work to support it so it's all good. We were right to try all these technologies to see which one worked out, they probably all have useful niches still.

>Did you consider how strategical targets became such networks?

All your numbers and calculations are background noise when you can't keep your fundamental concerns coherent.

Edit: Let me say that I see where you're coming from--I get the concern about large, low inertia systems, the ww2 partisans, the need for self reliance. But that ship has sailed. Russia is currently beating the bricks off Germany with the Nordstream. Saudi Arabia has been 'a murdering and 'a terrorizing for the better part of a century on the basis of their petroleum reserves.

I buy that renewables won't pay for the whole party, but it's also undeniable that renewables, in their various and sundry forms, are much more evenly distributed (globally, if not locally) and are therefore much less prone to the kind of exploitative power structures that have already arrived. All other economic considerations aside.

If I'm wrong and you're right, then I have no problem with that, although from what I've seen, the various green movements in Europe have attacked nuclear almost exclusively for ideological reasons, not economic ones.

I still believe that if we give nuclear an equal playing field to other energy forms when it comes to safety standards, other environmental regulations and allow them to be built efficiently by private companies without unnecessary red tape, prices will come down enough for them to be competitive.

Likewise, it seems to me that efforts to fully cover the grid with wind power (particularly in climates where solar is still expensive) has met with problems that have been partly covered up by proponents, and that this has contributed to increased prices, at least in Europe.

But if honest analysis proves me wrong, then I see no problem with that, just as long as it is really the economical side, not ideological ideas that the true reason for future prioritizations.