Article Copper can’t be mined fast enough to electrify the US for EVs

[confused2]

A sensible person would accept the reality that nuclear isn't "by far the cheapest" and can only supply base load power - any demand above base load has to be generated by other means. The first step should be to tell people how much their electricity is actually costing at the time they are using it (the spot rate) - then allow them to buy (and sell) electricity at the spot rate. If boiling a kettle at 5pm routinely costs $2 you might choose to have coffee a few minutes earlier (or later). Where appropriate people can, and will, install batteries so they can buy electricity when it is cheapest. With regard to heating and cooling .. (I'm told) American houses tend to have a low thermal mass so heating and cooling has to be an immediate response to outside conditions - by increasing the thermal mass (adding a sand pit?) you can do (some of) your cooling at night ready for the next hot day. Once consumers have (inevitably) taken steps to even out demand then look at the economics (and carbon footprint) of a nuke power station or even (heaven forbid) a fossil fuel power station that only runs when needed.

[Syne]

A sensible person would not be arguing against a wholly imagined argument. No one in this thread has mentioned nuclear being the cheapest. But brash, bold futurists do love to imagine.

[confused2]

Prompted by your [Syne] "But it [nuclear power] is, by far, the cleanest, most reliable power source." I started a dry run for what might have become a "Why not nuclear power?" thread. I lost track of who is saying "by far the" for which I can only apologise.