One of the biggest asset of nuclear power during the transition period from
fossil to renewable is HIGH DENSITY. The current energy infrastructure
relies on siting power plants in high population/land use areas.
Coal/gas/nuclear power plants can be sited on a couple square miles of land
and produce 2000 MW of power. It would take 4000 1.5MW wind generators to
AVERAGE that much (with 33% operational efficiencies--with are typical) and
you'd still have periods of no wind in the region. It will take decades to
build up an infrastructure where HUGE wind/solar farms can produce, STORE,
and TRANSPORT our total energy needs. The North-East (Boston to DC) is
always going to be a problem area.
One should be a bit skeptical (another thread) of Fusion power at this point
since 50+ years of research has yet to yield anything remotely practical.
The researchers are always saying "10 more years", but that has been the
mantra for the past 30 or so. When my class does their energy project
(supplying U.S. energy 100 years from now without the use of oil or gas) we
don't allow any 'deus ex machina' solutions. We work with proven
technology. It can be done, for 10s of trillions of dollars, and several
hundred thousand square miles of land. But nuclear, 'clean coal', and as
much hydro as possible are part of the program along with hydrogen as a
storage medium and portable fuel. What can be done in the U.S. can be more
difficult elsewhere. Japan for example has land problems. They really need
some high density energy sources.