Renewables cannot provide a reliable base load. Not unless you can have your solar panels in space where it always shines, we figure out tidal power, or you’re lucky in terms of geography and either hydroelectric or geothermal work for you.

Solar power doesn’t produce energy at night, wind doesn’t always blow. You know the drill.

You completely sidestepped the entire crux of my comment.

We need a base load of energy to fill that gap, because batteries currently can’t, and likely won’t be for decades. Here are the options we have available:

• nuclear power, which produces a waste that while trivial to store far away from people, will be radioactive for hundreds of years.

• fossil fuels, which cause massive damage not only to the local environment, but to the planet, and cleanup is effectively impossible.

• we put society on unpredictable energy curfews. At night the population can’t use much energy. When there’s a drop in wind or solar production, we cut people’s energy off. Both political parties must commit wholeheartedly to this in order to make it viable. Our lives would become worse, but we’d not have either of the above problems.

Of those 3 options, I’d rather go with nuclear. What’s your choice?