Here's a former Greenpeace bigwig's account of switching to pro-nuclear: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04...
Trivia: the discharge water from the plant raised sea temperature enough that surfers could feel it.
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.
It sucks 1,000 people will loose their jobs.
A lot more than 1,000 people will lose their jobs as the costs inevitably go up. Even more if the grid becomes flaky.
Time-averaged outputs are 1,045 MW wind, 175 MW solar. (2nd table, in units of gigawatt-hours per year. The 1st table shows peak capacities: 4,967 MW wind, 855 MW solar).