There aren't a lot of idled hydro, wind, or solar plants. Most of the idle plants are coal, with a small number of natural gas (higher construction cost per kw of capacity, previously more expensive fuel, but now natural gas is cheaper than the mitigated costs of coal, so they run gas and idle coal).
So, you'd be adding coal to the operating mix. The dirtiest plants are the ones which were idled, too.
In the 5 year timeframe, you could argue for building more natural gas, solar, wind, etc. to replace the nuclear, but as far as I can tell, wind and solar and being done as fast as they can, and the coal to gas transition is also happening.
There also isn't "one grid"; it's basically 3, and it's not like it has infinite capacity everywhere. Putting a bunch of wind in the Midwest or Texas doesn't really help California.
Also, an intuitive model of a single grid would be a bunch of ponds with small streams between them. You can't arbitrarily "wheel" power from one "pond" to another, you have to have in place sufficient transmission line capacity, which is not cheap.
What is the hydraulic analogy of reactance? inertial mass of pulsing water? (also, wtf does chrome on windows not include the word reactance in the dictionary?)
Considering the sheer energy that it makes available to us, if our main concern with Nuclear energy is that it makes water warmer, then I think I'm okay with that.
No, I meant trivia. I just thought it was interesting, my friends used to surf there. I think the biggest issue with nuclear power is the toxic waste with a half-life 500 times my lifespan.
It's only 600 years before it's no more radioactive than the ore it was mined from, "toxic" isn't a binary property. And it's not like it isn't valuable stuff, we're just too stupid to reprocess it.
A lot more than 1,000 people will lose their jobs as the costs inevitably go up. Even more if the grid becomes flaky.
Trivia: the discharge water from the plant raised sea temperature enough that surfers could feel it.