Maybe, but I think the corollary goal is to have nuclear power be a bigger part of the remaining non-renewables. So if (exaggerating grossly) it's 90% renewable, 9% nuclear, and 1% other, that's arguably still better than the current state.
The only cheap renewable infrastructure comes from an enemy country and PV solar panels start degrading the moment you install them.
If you think "energy independence" means "be completely and utterly dependent on Chinese manufacturing" then sure, solar and wind offer a quick path to that.
But that's not what the term means, it means "don't need to depend on any other country to keep the lights on". And for Western countries nuclear is really the only option there, whether you like it or not.
If you think nuclear is too expensive, just wait until you see the bill for the the continual refusal to develop indigenous electric capability the minute things start going sideways.
This is false on both counts. The US is (was?) making panels that were only about $0.18/W more expensive than the cheapest panels. India is also standing up quite a bit of manufacturing. France could also make their own panels, Germany had some experience with that too...
Also, panels last 30 years, there's no continuous fueling like there is with fossil fuels and nuclear.
> If you think "energy independence" means "be completely and utterly dependent on Chinese manufacturing" then sure, solar and wind offer a quick path to that.
The idea that using solar somehow makes us in any way dependent on China is so ludicrous that I'm amazed you type it out! Please try to justify that in any way. More nuclear in the US would make us more dependent on Russia than a 100% solar electricity system could ever make us dependent on China.
> If you think nuclear is too expensive, just wait until you see the bill for the the continual refusal to develop indigenous electric capability the minute things start going sideways.
First, actually look at the numbers. Nuclear is more expensive. Second, look at where the US is getting its nuclear fuel as late as 2024, Russia, accounting for a large part of our trade with a country that we're not supposed to be trading with at all:
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/russia...
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64444
And Russia is far more hostile to the US on all fronts that China is.
We have solar panel manufacturing capacity in the US, we can build it on our own for cheap enough to replace all our dependence on global fossil fuel markets and their volatility, and yet people are for some reason fabricating complete fantasies to say that solar and wind are somehow not the most independent of all power generation forms.