How well nuclear energy contributes to the battle against climate change requires grappling with California's complex energy system.

California gets its energy from a variety of sources, like much of the country, it's primarily natural gas.

It's about 49% natural gas.

Nuclear makes up about 9% Solar now is about 20% Then you have wind, hydro, and geothermal, which make up about another 20% We also receive power from Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and even as far as Wyoming.

It's about a third of California's supply.

You're depending on the states around you to help keep the lights on.

Even amongst the climate scientists I talk to regularly, there is a split on an renewables alone provide all of the energy needs so that we can go to a low-carbon or zero-carbon energy setup for the United States?

There are times when wind and solar will provide more than 100% of the power that a community needs, but solar and wind don't happen all the time.

Solar power produces electricity when the sun shines.

At night, it doesn't produce and the wind doesn't always blow.

There are storage methods you can use, it's just they're nowhere near large or plentiful enough to have right now renewable power provide all of the United StatesE power.

We haven't built enough storage in large part, because all of these issues focus on economics.

Our system when it comes to energy is based on a utility company that has a rate base that they draw from to build stuff.

The transformer hanging on a light pole to the power plant, and they rely on their ratepayers to cover those costs.

That makes it difficult because we see rates now rising at a pace all across the country, particularly as we go through the energy transition.

The question is, what is going to fill the gap between what solar and wind can produce, the need for storage, and the move to get rid of fossil fuels?