Possibly, but it seems exceptionally expensive and slow for what you get.

Sods law will say if you don't invest in nuclear, you'll be using a lot more CCGT because storage or large-geography interconnects won't be there

But if you do invest, you'll end up being stuck with something costing far more than commodity renewables+storage

We have "workable fission" now, it's just very expensive. Workable fusion is always a generation away.

Sorry, yes, obvious typo fission -> fusion.

It does feel like Tokamak will never arrive. An acquaintance did their doctorate last year on modelling some aspect of the containment; they didn't seem hopeful.

Nuclear might have been an answer ten years ago, but one cannot make the case today that it is the answer. The raw economics have pushed nuclear out of the picture now.

Go on, so what do you propose for baseline power - more gas fired power stations?

Renewables + storage. For long term storage and covering rare extended dark windless periods, the key is hydrogen, for which the cost per kWh for underground storage can be far lower than for batteries (efficiency is lower, but that's ok.)

If you go to https://model.energy/ and optimize such systems in various places, using real weather data, you find nuclear (called "Dispatchable 2" in the advanced options) get optimized to 0%. It's just too expensive. That site uses plausible cost numbers, except electrolysers are already cheaper than their target cost for 2030.