So once Solar gets even cheaper, everybody puts it on their roof, and in a nice summer at high noon you get 300% of your demand being produced by solar alone... How are you going to store that much electricity, you'd need TWhs worth of storage.
Part of the plan will be exporting much of that electricity, but now add equivalent levels of solar to France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, the Balkans, Poland, who are you going to sell to ?
Unless you have a seasonal industry that can use GWs worth of electricity only when it's sunny, your project isn't going to scale, no matter how cheap solar gets.

I agree with everything you say, except for Solar PV rooftop. The rooftop is there, being wasted, let's use that to generate electricity. But that's as far as I would go, except for the sahara, northern Brazil or other places in the world that are so dry you can depend on large Solar PV to generate reliably year round with very little deviation.

Then you need to study the difference between LNT and Hormesis radiation models.
Study the nature of repair mechanisms in mamals.
Study how the same damage that radioactivity does to our body is also caused by simple oxidation.
The whole model of risk of nuclear to our bodies is the result of fear, fear, fear, the fact that we can't subject humans to radiation levels that are know to be safe in reality but considered risky.
Funding to research projects trying to prove hormesis have been cut throughout the years, there has been a sistematic effort to prevent hormesis from being proven (using rats and other acceptable subjects).
Once you prove Hormesis, the whole house of cards of nuclear safety comes down. That wouldn't change the risk @ Chernobyl for the first month after the accident, but it would pretty much have prevented the evacuation of Fukushima, except perhaps for a few Km radius instead of 30 Km, radically reduced the cleanup costs, finally Fukushima was the result of a 9 point earthquake, that was never though realistic for Japan.

My challenge is to those that reject nuclear while trying to pretend they are environmentalists.
With modular MSRs in the 250-300MW that are fueled with liquid fuel its a whole different type of nuclear. Those reactors could go for many, many years non stop, since the fuel is added in little batches, like an injection is given to patient, with reprocessing facilities little batches of core coolant+fuel can be removed and reprocessed to remove fission products then returned to the core.
Like I said totally different deal. The way nuclear was supposed to be.
Water cooled, solid fuel nuclear was seen in the 50s as a temporary kludge to win the cold war, while keeping their research funding. All Manhattan Project scientists never saw it as the solution.

Solid fuel reactors have trouble load following due to buildup of Xenon 135.
In MSRs the fuel is dissolved in the core, with Helium being bubbled through the core to speedup Xenon and Krypton removal at the top of the reactor, this advantage plus the very high negative temperature coefficient makes load following a breeze for MSRs vs very hard for regular reactors.

MSRs probably won't need to be shutdown due to earthquakes, completely different way of operation, totally walk away safe, the reactor shutdowns without any intervention if it overheats in any way. Worst case, split into two 500MW sites.

MSRs are meant to be way cheaper than regular reactors, so it might end up being cheaper to overbuild them than actually maintaining fossil backups.

I completely understand the relative characteristics of current and proposed reactors. Although such reactors aren't factored in any existing nuclear planning, since they are still under design. The most far along seems to be the IMSR from Terrestrial Energy from Canada, engineering blueprints for regulatory review is being finalized.

Rooftop solar has zero O&M costs. Don't need to rent/buy land, no employees, it just runs, so it comes down to return on investment, you can't actually have a monthly loss. But putting a solar panel for a 10+ year payoff, isn't what anybody would call a rational investment.
BTW, lets kill all subsidies and see if people would still be putting any solar panels in Germany or Canada.

Just look up nuclear reactor construction cost and schedule in South Korea. They are building reactors at less than a third of cost in USA and Europe. The difference is skilled, well trained labor that know what they're doing, rational nuclear regulatory, and lower labor costs. Notice they also build the reactor way faster.
So they're doing the same job with far less men hours.

Yet, that insurance has never been claimed against, cause there actually is a self insured pot of money that all USA nuclear operators add to, that pot keeps growing. Tens of billions already.
So while the USA govt provides the back stop, it has never been needed.

Burning wood is the worst type of biomass I can think. You're taking a good, long term carbon storage, releasing that carbon into the atmosphere, growing the wood again takes a long while.
Good biomass is biomethane, and waste from harvesting vegetables (for instance sugar cane leaves lots of folliage and roots that Brazil is using for electricity production, it's stuff that would be burned or decompose anyways).

Think about this. A GE ESBWR should cost a few billion if you add up the rational costs expected. Instead its offered to a USA customer as a USD 10 billion project. Its the most economical reactors offered by North America and western Europe (Russia and India have cheaper designs, specially when they are built and installed locally).
Westinghouse AP1000 are budgeted at US$ 4 billion for China installation.
An ESBWR is 1.6GW, while an Areva EPR is closer to 2GW, so even at twice the GE projected cost with USA labor an ESBWR should be a third of Hinkley point !
Finally, and I can't stress that enough, Westinghouse, GE, Areva do not build the whole thing. Its not just a matter of civil engineering, lots of parts end up locally sourced, there is a sore lack of nuclear expertise in most countries, most mistakes require endless reviews from the nuclear regulatory agency.
Modular GenIV reactors are supposed to be almost entirely factory built, without any critical local sourcing of anything nuclear on the plant, just civil engineering and other generic items.
Like I said, we can either think we don't need nuclear, so we don't need to care, or understand why we need nuclear and choose to fight to fix the system.

Hinkley Point C is Areva EPR. If I could, I would kill that reactor from the market. The nuclear experts claim its the posterchild of doing nothing to decrease costs, rejecting any simplifications, and just adding costs with complex engineered safety instead of passive safety.
Part of the problem is Areva buying that German nuclear supplier, and the engineers from both sides failing to agree on a rational solution, essentially having two solutions for everything. Insane.
Post Chernobyl and Fukushima regulatory insanity is killing nuclear. Instead of only preventing accidents that will happen in the next few centuries, they're trying to prevent all possible accidents that might happen over the next millenia, something like that. Cost must matter. But the NRC doesn't care, and the other NATO countries mostly copy NRC resolutions.

BRAZIL has all the load following it needs. Its called big hydro. Brazil's peak electricity demand is around 100GW, with over 80GW of installed big hydro generation capacity. The critical aspect is water supply (reservoir status). Its what pumped hydro should be instead, an actual generation asset instead of a purely storage solution.
We don't have a boatload of wind cause our govt is very inefficient to do its thing. Matter of fact in many ways I'm ashamed of being Brazilian. But we could easily add 30 GW worth of nameplate wind. We also have the big advantage of the wind being the strongest when its dry, so it compliments hydro perfectly.
We also have 2GW of nuclear (2 reactors), another 1.3GW nuclear in construction, and tens of GW in various fossil plants (mostly natural gas).
This storage argument is very interesting. You are ignoring the fact that Denmark imports lots of hydro electricity from norway/sweden, nuclear from France, without big imports the system would break down. Local storage is far from sufficient.
The final fact is Denmark / Germany / Spain have the most expensive electricity in Europe, part of the extra cost is taxes, but even without taxes, Germany electricity is more expensive than France. If Energiewende was that cost effective, then why isn't Germany cheaper than France ?
I'm not making up lies, you're the one ignoring the inconvenient facts to your side.
I wish solar+wind could do the job, but it cant. The problem is the side that can't recognize that nuclear is essential to get rid of fossil fuels worldwide. China is burning more coal than the entire rest of the world combined. Still they are doing solar,wind,nuclear and hydro as fast as they can. They are adding clean electricity to their grid much faster than Europe or the USA, cause the govt doesn't care about NIMBY nonsense.

Then why don't they build a few more wind farms and go full throttle on wind ?
I said a few times, prove me it works, a whole large country using at least 1/3 of its electricity from wind. But the UK has zero plans to get rid of nuclear, instead they are actually building nuclear and planning more.
Hawaii very difference scenario, since wind is competing with very expensive electricity from oil, and in Hawaii all fossil generation is peaking anyways, with the fuel dominating costs, so every extra MWh not generated from fossil, the better.
On shore wind might not be variable on carefully selected sites.
Let remind those that might point out that Germany gets 70+% of their electricity from solar, that's not even a whole perfect summer day, that's instantaneous load for the best summer day in the year. You need 75% peak solar share to have much less than 1/3 yearly average.

Wind capacity factor 52%, that's a bold faced lie. Show me a single wind farm producing above 40%. typical is 20% - 35%.
Those numbers are crazy, it a pretty report with unreliable or fabricated data.

I like rooftop solar PV. It's making good use of otherwise wasted roof space.
But I don't like utility scale solar PV, way too expensive for wholesale generation.
rooftop solar PV competes with retail electricity prices.
grid scale solar PV competes with natural gas, nuclear, ...