"100% renewable energy", what does that mean?

100% renewable energy is a myth concocted by anti-energy greens, to justify shutting nuclear power. Media outlets pushing 100% renewable are also hard-line anti-nuclear power sites. Their news stories on some supposed renewable energy “breakthrough” sometimes say: “Will XXX renewable breakthrough finally kill nuclear power”. Bit of a Freudian slip there by them. Some of the most avid and hard-line 100%-RE activists are funded by natural gas interests.

Shutting nuclear plants means more fossil fuel

The argument against nuclear power, and for 100% renewables basically says: keeping nuclear power slows the transition to 100% renewables. Evidence contradicts this. There is no transition to 100% renewables. The U.S. Energy Information Administration, EIA, show that: shuttered nuclear power plants are replaced by fossil fuel, not “green” energy.

• Mathijs Beckers debunks 100% RE:
• Precourt's anti-nuclear activism - the all or nothing fallacy..., and his other blogs and books.
• Fossil fuel replaces shut nuclear power:
• EIA report: Fort Calhoun becomes fifth U.S. nuclear plant to retire in past five years
• Shuttered Nuclear Plants Aren’t Being Replaced By Green Energy, Daily Caller media report
• Barry Brook (EROI requirements show 100% RE is impossible) :
• The Catch-22 of Energy Storage
• Blair King (a chemist on 100% RE) :
• Deconstructing the 100% Fossil Fuel Free Wind, Water and Sunlight USA paper – Part I Why no nuclear power?
• Deconstructing the 100% Fossil Fuel Free Wind, Water and Sunlight USA paper – Part II What about those pesky rare earth metals?
• Deconstructing the 100% Wind, Water and Sunlight scenarios – Part III Issues with energy storage
• Just some of the other reasons 100% RE is daft:
• Stanford’s Jacobson Spins Energy Misinformation (100% renewables fantasy)
• Climate Activists Push Study Showing 3.8 Million Lost Jobs from Renewable Energy Transition