[pedrocr]

I'm confused. Who has agreed that solar+wind is off the table? Approximately no one has effectively decided nuclear is the right answer for a long time. If the proof is in what the market is actually building, solar and wind are the winners by huge margins.

What's commonly done in these arguments, and you did some of that, is declare that from first principles nuclear is the solution and we aren't only doing it for other reasons. Yet while there are plenty of simulations of doing full grids with only solar, wind and batteries there's never one where a full nuclear roll-out actually makes sense economically.

[coldpie]

> I'm confused. Who has agreed that solar+wind is off the table?

Ah okay! That's our disconnect. Do go run the numbers on how much natural gas we're burning up here. It's a lot, like seriously a lot. How many batteries will we need to ensure that amount of energy is available for (say) 2 weeks of continuous cloud cover at -10 ~ -40 degrees F? Keep in mind that if it fails, people will die. I don't feel confident enough in my own analysis to share it, but do try it out yourself for an exercise. It's pretty eye-opening.

> Yet while there are plenty of simulations of doing full grids with only solar, wind and batteries

I would love to see this! Can you share some? Do they account for converting Minnesota's heating needs from natural gas?

[pedrocr]

You're again talking about simulating only Minnesota I suspect. If you want a realistic simulation there are others in the thread and RethinkX has had a whole-US simulation for a long time. What I've never seen is a nuclear roll-out simulation that argues that's a good option. Do you have one of those?