I think that's a no brainer and why I've never opposed nuclear power plants but just as you can't rely solely on wind or solar, you can't rely just on nukes either or fossil fuel plants for that matter.

You have to always have a backup. Any of those sources can be subject to interruptions, wind during stagnant weather conditions, solar on too many overcast days, nuclear during earthquakes and other natural disasters, and fossil fuels due to international instability. Even hydroelectric suffers from quirks in the weather. Saw a study the other day that said Lake Mead could dry up if enough years of drought continue in its watershed. That dam supplies a huge amount of power. Yet, often during droughts solar output is increased.

Lets have a grid that uses it all.

Oh, and by the way, if we spent even half the money it would cost to build a nuclear or even a fossil fuel plant as a backup to those wind arrays on improving the energy efficiency of all the homes and businesses that grid serviced, the energy required would be probably halved. What's the logical first start and best use of the money?

Art