It's "mindless" to point out that grid scale energy storage doesn't exist in a discussion about solar + wind + storage being "a compelling alternative to nuclear" which "can be built faster?" GP is making a simple point that these back of the napkin calculations are exactly that; they don't take some factors into account - one being that grid scale energy storage doesn't exist. Where does GP say that "nothing can happen for the first time?" Where in that post is "tendentious and mindless reactionary conservatism?" I don't see any argument at all in GP. That comment is only saying that the calculation relies on technology that doesn't exist. Also, if GP is making an argument with that statement, why is it necessarily that one? Couldn't it be that the argument is that since the time needed to create this technology is either too long or unknown, it may be better to focus or at lest not withdraw from nuclear? If not that argument, why specifically does the argument have to be "nothing can happen for the first time?"