You want to replace most power station with non-base load renewables (wind + solar). Well, at peak power are going to add more batteries, to make sure your energy doesn't go to waste. Want to add more batteries, oh you'll need more renewable sources keep it net positive during the winter months and probably keep those battery from draining completely. This is ofc, before the quetion arises, what happens if you have weeks/months of no sun at all :)

Geothermal? Not everyone has access plus possible increases in tectonic activity.

Hydro? Not everyone has access plus possible destruction of ecosystems.

Burning waste to produce power? Probably not enough burnable waste.

Don't get me wrong. Solar scales great if you have a backup to fallback to. California going from 1.9-2.5% of solar would cost as much as a small nuclear plant (around $18 billion dollars).

Theres a significant number of Greens that are against nuclear. And rather than infight about that, I'd rather work on what we all do agree on first.

Once we've decarbonised the grid then we can have the discussion about nuclear.

What I don't want is any other countries doing a Germany and pissing away time and money turning off nuclear reactors whilst still burning coal.

The UK has already almost entirely replaced coal.

Indeed. I'd rather take a global approach to what is a global problem though. Germany and Eastern Europe are still burning plenty of coal that could be offset. We are all on the same grid I believe.