I assume you're referring to nuclear power, which a) has its own environmental problems and b) is really expensive, to the point of not being cost-competitive.

In general, it seems the people who are complaining about government subsidies for renewable energy development have no problems with massive government subsidies to the nuclear power industry.

I'm not anti-nuclear, per se, but given the huge potential downsides and massive lead times of current nuclear projects I don't think it's at all "ready to tackle this problem". But we should absolutely fund research into technologies like MSR, thorium, etc. We do need something to replace base loads, and I don't think biomass is going to cut it.

Interestingly, energy from American nuclear reactors increased in price by somewhere between a factor of six[0] and a factor of ten[1], possibly as a result of Three Mile Island. French nuclear seems to be cheaper than wind and solar.

[0] http://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us...

[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20170213025941/https://www.resear...

Perhaps the cheap nuclear power era in France will soon end.

"France’s Nuclear Storm: Many Power Plants Down Due to Quality Concerns"

by Lee Buchsbaum - Power Magazine - (12/01/2016)

http://www.powermag.com/frances-nuclear-storm-many-power-pla...

France went from 10% to 80% nuclear in 20 years and without increasing costs relative to the rest of the EU. Show me another generation technology capable of the same.