Agreed, Nathan-- this seems like the right kind of 'all of the above' approach to take, especially where nuclear is already built out. Also notable because lots of different 'sides' or 'camps' of the energy debates like to point to the fact that this energy or that resource needs subsidies to stay viable, but the reality is there are tons of implicit and explicit subsidies all across the board and that shouldn't be treated as an inherent indictment. Instead we should look to shift that support from the damaging (e.g., massive fossil fuel subsidies) to the forward-looking (e.g., ensuring carbon-free generation is supported)

I wish Illinois (and California) wind and solar and wind advocates had your balanced perspective on the issue, Nathan, but they don't.

"Members of the Illinois Clean Jobs Coalition want their state to upstage its peers by becoming the first mainland state to be powered entirely by renewables — not just clean energy. Last week, Senator Cristina Castro and Representative Ann Williams introduced legislation that would do just that.

The Clean Energy Jobs Act (SB 2132/HB 3624), backed by 45 mostly Democratic state lawmakers, calls for transitioning Illinois to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.

The bill specifically states that utility procurement plans “shall” include “cost-effective renewable energy resources” equal to a minimum percentage of each utility's load for all retail customers as follows: 25 percent by June 2025; 45 percent by June 2030; 90 percent by June 2045; increasing to at least 100 percent by June 2050. It also sets an interim target of 100 percent carbon-free electricity in 2030."

Wind and solar interests have revealed they're not in it for the environment - they're in it for the money. They've made themselves the enemy, and I say, "Bring it!". As they did in Illinois, those in California will lose - and it can't happen soon enough.