Steven Chu, the Nobel Laureate and Obama's first Secretary, speaking in defense of Diablon Canyon said "We are not in a position in the near term to go with 100% renewable energy, and there will be times when the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine and we will need some power that we can turn on and dispatch at will, and that leaves two choices, fossil or nuclear."
Source: Wikipedia page on Diablo Canyon nuclear plant.
One of course doesn't need to be a Nobel Laureate to understand what I put in bold. We know what antinukes choose among Chu's choices: Fossil fuels.
The solar and wind industry are not producing significant energy on a scale comparable to human energy demand, this at a cost of trillions of dollars. It can't even match the pace, measured in units of energy, Exajoules, of the rate at which fossil fuels are growing. It is growing at an absurdly lethargic pace, tearing the shit out of land and mineral supplies as it does so.
Of course, antinukes don't give a rat's ass about fossil fuels, never have, never will.
The Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors came on line in 1985. They have been providing low carbon electricity, the lowest possible actually, for 41 years. In 41 years every solar cells and every wind turbine in California and, in fact, on the planet will be waste for future generations to clean up.
Historically nuclear energy grew faster than either solar or wind have, this in a climate of catcalls from ignoramus antinukes cheering for the useless and expensive solar and wind industry in orgies of sybaritic stupidity.
Diablo Canyon was a gift, from the people who built it, to future generations. All the solar and wind junk is, by contrast, will be a liability dumped on future generations.
Reliability and length of service matter.
Have a nice day.
= new reply since forum marked as read