All of that is great, and I'm all for it. Can't wait for the first grids with no fossils whatsoever, once energy storage improves enough that it can take all the balancing load. When we reach that, it will mark the start of the era where nuclear is actually being replaced by renewables rather than fossils.

My point here is that switching off nuclear is premature for now. It's a very clean source of energy once you look at the per kWh numbers and nuclear waste management solutions are actually extremely safe. (The videos where they test the containers by smashing actual trains into them are kinda fun -- and those tests are done with liquid water, which is far more susceptible to leaking than solid ceramics.) Of course, if we reach a point where wind, solar, and hydro can fully replace fossils and start eating into nuclear's share then that's gonna be a very different conversation, and I'm fully with renewables in that situation, but we should always keep the alternatives in mind when we shut something off.

That's why we're not just shutting down coal plants altogether, because there's just nothing to replace them. Although an energy policy where you just flat out ban renewables fossils and tell the market that that's the supply, now go figure it out would certainly be interesting. Very expensive and terrible for the economy, but interesting nonetheless. (Definitely the based kind of chaos if you ask me.)

edit: okay, that was a weird word to accidentally replace, lol