Fossil fuels are a finite and dwindling resource, and its use is possibly causing an extinction event. The human race can't really afford to buy the cheaper option here.

An alternative to that is to sit and do nothing.

Yes, that is an alternative, but probably a better alternative is to invest in nuclear/renewable energy research. Which is what he is doing.

Do you understand that even in a 30+ years, with the most optimistic forecast of technological progression, and availability of funds, the nuclear option will still be incomparably more expensive, and impractical for a small size power station in an undeveloped nation?

Do you have a source to support that claim? Because from what I’ve read and seen, the economics of nuclear are significantly better over a longer timespan.

https://youtu.be/UC_BCz0pzMw

I worked in the field of engineering since 2007. I can surely say that even simply the choice of materials, and metalworking processes mean that the nuclear reactor vessel alone costs like one diesel/LNG power stations.

Steam turbines are bigger, and more expensive than equivalently powerful turbines of a gas-turbine engine, and not to say that gas turbine is also its own source of hot gas.

I think the best option for undeveloped nations is to rent their power generation equipment until they can bootstrap their electric grid, and build proper power stations.

Renewable energies, energy efficiency and demand response are already cheaper than most new dirty power plant...