> This 95% Green solution is going to be a lot cheaper and more reliable than a 100% Green solution.

Right now our energy is roughly 5-10% green. Arguing whether green energy should eventually be 95% or 100% is purely pedantic at this point. There is approximately 95% of common ground between green energy purists and pragmatists. Lets get in line.

California's over 40% on solar+hydro+wind+geothermal.

Who downvotes facts?

https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_sys...

Large Hydro 10.68%

Renewables (including geothermal, solar, and wind) 31.36%

Nuclear 9%

"I refuse your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage, a man ahead of his time.

Sure, but the problem is most demand occurs when intermittent sources do not produce energy. This plan really aims for about 40% green energy not 95% green energy. Hence why Germany's emissions have remained flat despite large increases in solar and wind generation.

There is no good reason to expect the ¨last 5%¨ of demand will be more economically met by the next generation of nuclear plants - than by the generation of renewable tech which will be developed by the time it is already supplying the other 95% ;)