Nuclear vs Solar/Wind

Solar and Wind need a backup. Solar only works for 1/3 of the day, at most. It needs a backup. At the moment our backup is burning fossil fuels. Solar and Wind are only clean if their backup is clean, too. Otherwise they are an incomplete solution. Nuclear a better, greener backup.

Solar & wind != nuclear.Solar and wind are not on demand and require storage that's not currently practical.

Wind and solar can't power civilization alone. You need either Nuclear or fossil to provide the baseload.

Any? Solar and nuclear would like a word :P

It's too late. Solar and wind have the popularity and the momentum. They won. The base cost to solar is also much, much cheaper than nuclear, making it easier to practically implement. And solar/wind is a better long term solution anyway in that we don't have to worry about waste management, safety, maintenance, etc. It can also be extremely decentralized.

I'd much rather have solar/wind/nuclear than solar/wind/gas.

Solar & wind are great, but no mention of nuclear? (look into Gen IV if concerned about nuclear's reputation)That's looking like what we need most of all if we want to seriously tackle the problem.If you're wondering why, Bill Gates argues a good case on why solar & wind are not enough: https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=518

Solar and wind are great, but they don't provide continuous power. We need them, and nuclear.

Why no mention of nuclear electricity generation, which requires less CO2 than Solar and even Wind? (For the same amount of available power)

Right .. Nuclear is fine. It is a perfectly viable way to power your economy. Solar/Wind/Batteries are not.