Hi, pro-nuclear here,

That's the eventual ideal, but energy storage technology isn't there yet. The biggest issue facing renewables currently is the ability to maintain a base load demand that is increasing faster and faster each year.

Currently, the cheapest way we have to store energy is to store it chemically, in the form of coal, petroleum, or fissle fuel. Of these, the fissle option is by far the best. It's by far the most energy-dense, doesn't release any carbon into the atmosphere when used, and the amount of waste it produces is dangerous, but miniscule in comparison. All the high level waste ever produced since the late 50s could fit in a single building.

It's not realistic to fully replace everything with renewables until some very difficult engineering problems are solved. So our choices right now are:

• build more renewables

Pros: getting cheaper and more efficient but worse than current tech, no carbon pollution

Cons: experience more power failures as it cannot meet current energy demands

• build a coal/petroleum plant

Pros: very cheap and very efficient

Cons: accelerate climate change, increase pollution

• build a nuclear plant

Pros: can easily meet base load demands, very efficient, no carbon pollution

Cons: expensive, special waste management is required.

As things stand now, I would like to replace aging petroleum power plants with nuclear while continuing to build more and more renewables. Then, once we've either found a way to reduce energy demand or improve storage, start to phase out the nuclear plants