It’s not that hard. Jacobson et al have detailed what’s required.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
The increase in velocity of wind and solar is astounding globally. In 2018, China alone built almost as much utility-scale solar as the entire US capacity, and close to a third of the total US wind generation capacity as well. They are on track to double their 2020 solar targets, and exceed their 2020 wind targets by about 25%. Meanwhile, their much longer running nuclear program isn’t hitting capacity targets and they are reducing targets for it.
Any money spent on nuclear goes 3–5 times further on wind and solar, and the wind and solar gets built 3–5 times faster too. There’s just no reason for building new nuclear in rational policy making.
I don’t have anything against nuclear as a technology. It’s safe, effective and low carbon. But it’s not sensible to build it when we have much cheaper generation available.
As for storage, the vast majority of storage built to date is pumped hydro for nuclear plants because of their limitations. It’s a proven technology, 87% efficient round trip and there are very high resources available in coal country where there are a lot of workers looking for jobs.
As for transmission, HVDC has broken innumerable barriers.
We have the solutions. It just takes some money to build them, about $3 trillion for all energy use displacing all fossil fuels for everything, which is less than most of the Democratic climate plans.
You can, of course, continue to disagree with me, but the number of governments that are committed to climate action that aren’t bothering to build new nuclear and academic efforts such as Jacobson’s (and Diesendorf’s out of Australia) make it clear that your perspective is not strongly supported by very credible organizations.
