Sure. That's great if you can use less. Hopefully you aren't just above the poverty line in a drafty rental with and old electric force-air heating system, a 20+-year-old electric water heater, window air conditioners, and an old electric stove that was provided with the rental.

The bits that folks have actual control over are small and are often taking up less and less electricity: For example, light bulbs. New bulbs mean it doesn't always make a noticable difference when you turn lights off. You can probably use the television and computers less, but this isn't likely. You can possibly turn down the heat,but only to an extent and even less so if you have an infant in the house or if someone is elderly or otherwise sick. You can't use less refrigeration.

Even for folks that can afford it, there are actual limits to how much you can save on electricity. If you go low enough, you wind up paying a minimum monthly fee and few will stop using it altogether.

That's great until there's cloudy weather (and/or a snowstorm) for an extended period of time. Suddenly, everyone has a much larger bill for that month. Also, what about all the people living in apartments?

You're getting downvoted but you're right. Getting cheap energy when the sun is shining or wind is blowing is great, but we can't ignore the value of reliability, which skyrockets when it's in short supply.

This is why all NREL and OECD studies into deep decarbonization with intermittent resources show grid integration costs skyrocketing above 50-80% variable penetration in electricity markets.

E.g.: https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2019/7299-system-costs.pdf

Whole-system costs should be modeled. Better modelers than these should do the job.

Look at their Table 2 of cost assumptions. They show overnight costs for onshore wind farms at $2000/kW, 30% capacity factor and nuclear at $4700/kW overnight, 100% capacity factor. If those numbers were valid for the US, we'd already have a nuclear renaissance here and wind would have remained a small niche source. Texas and Oklahoma didn't build all those wind farms because of pressure from Greenpeace.

New wind gets a Federal production tax credit, of course. Nuclear also qualifies for a smaller production tax credit. I think that the nuclear PTC and wind PTC should have been equal all along, but I don't actually think that would have changed much about the growth curves in the US. The main problem with new nuclear projects is that they are badly estimated and take a very long time to build, so they don't even reach the part where they can collect those tax credits.

Nuclear needs more frequent builds if it's ever going to get costs and project estimation uncertainty back down to reasonable levels. The US doesn't have a political system that can really commit to a plan longer than 8 years. We couldn't commit to an American Messmer Plan even if a really pro-nuclear President and Congress were in office this year. It looks to me like small modular reactors, executed well, are the last good path forward for nuclear reactors. I'd like to see some built soon. I've been reading proposals for them my whole adult life.