"entirely capable of keeping them with power even if the grid goes down for an indefinite period."

You do know that batteries have a capacity right? And powerplants have something called a capacity factor. That means for a given amount of capacity, you generate on average a certain amount of power. For nuclear that factor is .9. For renewables its .1. So 1 watt of nuclear provides the same power as 9 watts of renewables. That's why when you say that renewables have 1/3 the capacity cost, it really means its 3x more expensive than nuclear. That means higher bills for people, which is what we mean when we say utilization cost. That's the real cost that people pay and actually counts. And all this is before we talk about siting issues with renewables. Fun fact, most PV is sites (located) somewhere with an albino factor of less than .25. But since you connected a battery terminal to a PV panel, you must know what that means. Seriously, you are just spreading misinformation that transfers cost from the rich to the poor, such a hero you are.

I didn't say that renewables have 1/3 of anything.

And I'm a big fan of nuclear power. I, for one, am completely in favor of having as many nuclear power plants in my back yard as possible.

You seem to be having an argument with someone who is not present -- as if you have some unseen enemy.

This delusion has been noted.

There is nothing here for us to discuss.

Good day.