If you use old numbers for something that drops 80% in cost in a decade, you get bad numbers.

Your source suggests that providing 95% of Texas energy with wind and solar and batteries will cost the same as providing it with nuclear and batteries.

I'm dubious about many of their assumptions but even your source shows that renewables are the obvious choice to power the world.

It's also interesting that the cost drops 50% if you don't need to cover the last 5%. A shame he didn't go further and calculate at 80% and so on like the recent Australian working paper.

I guess that would show that starting the rollout now would provide lots of savings that could be used to deploy the later percentiles.