[jfengel]

If we agree that solar+storage is off the table, then the question is what should we build instead?

The answer is actually "nothing". We keep gas generators around for the winter months in extreme northern climates.

We don't have to drive fossil fuels down to zero. If we need to run fossil fuel plants 10% of the time, then we've cut 90% of our power-generation CO2. Cutting the remaining 10% is far less important than other greenhouse gas sources (transportation, concrete & steel manufacture, agriculture, etc.)

We already have all of the gas plants we need to do that job. Replacing the with nuclear is unnecessary.

If it turns out that we can build nuclear fast and cheap enough to supplement the existing zero-emission transition, so much the better. But there's no need to prioritize the last dregs of fossil fuels. Just the opposite: whatever gets rid of most of the problem, fastest, is optimal for reducing the harm from climate change.