"Easily solvable" is highly dubious. The guy behind the 100% renewables no nuclear allowed push sued his scientific critics for publishing a critique of his work and was eventually forced to pay their legal fees. [1]

But that aside, just looking at the sheer magnitude of capacity mentioned in his papers, one can see that it's not even remotely easy or trivial. See eye-watering Table 2 in [2]

[1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/11/stanford-prof-ordered...

[2] https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USSt...

Now you are assassinating the character of a person I have not mentioned. Is that what is necessary to sell nuclear?

Do you bet against this?

https://i.imgur.com/JYMNAWR.png

Nope, I am pointing out that 100% renewables is far harder than claimed, that criticism has been suppressed, and providing refs to back up my points.

I'm pro anything low carbon. I love wind and solar and hydro and nuclear. These no-nuclear people are trying to get us to tie a hand behind our backs for no reason in the midst of a climate crisis. Energy generation choices are not a zero sum game.

Lots of antinuclear people mistakenly believe that pro-nuclear people are also anti-wind or anti-solar when in fact we are usually just anti-fossil and biofuel.

We can agree that 90% is trivially solvable. That will get deployed shortly.

So you are telling me that a peaking nuclear plant will solve the last 10% when it comes online at earliest 2040? What problem are we even solving then rather than brute forcing nuclear into the solution?

Then try put that nuclear power plant on a marginal price market. What do you expect to happen?