See the other posts in this thread, where this has already been covered: <i>solar and wind are not a replacement for coal</i>. By rejecting nuclear, you are <i>choosing</i> coal, de facto, for the base load.<p>Why build a reactor? Because it&#x27;s <i>safer</i> than solar, and cheaer in the long run. Why do you want a power source that kills more people per kWh?<p>Nuclear has very low running costs (practically no fuel) and a lot of the startup costs are temporary (new design approval). Intermittent technologies like solar and wind need expensive extra redundency and battery storage. Show me the batteries you are going to use, at a price cheaper than <i>both</i> coal and nuclear, Not some vaporware future technology, something we can buy right now. (the grid isn&#x27;t a battery, even though most people using solar right now use the grid as if it was).<p>Nuclear isn&#x27;t easy or cheap, but it&#x27;s the <i>least worst</i> method we have for generating power. Other technologies will always have niche uses, of course, but choosing to wait for some mythical future technology to become available is choosing to let coal plants continue polluting the world.