> not because they have built a better alternative to using natural gas or other dirty fuels to cover this load, they haven't, but because it is unprofitable to do the required maintenance and necessary improvements.

Solar and wind are pervasive and cheap in California. If nuclear is no better for the environment and more expensive, why should it keep running?

The whole "profit" thing is a way to manage scarce resources, i.e. minimize waste. That's exactly what we want.

You're right that for basic needs like shelter, energy, food, and water, we shouldn't accept that some people might have to go without. So we have tipped the scales through programs like section 8, progressive energy rates, EBT, etc to get that outcome will still seeing other resources efficiently used.