If that resistance disappeared - even if it was just lessened significantly because of policy - storage, local grid, state grid, national grid and even international grid solutions would all start taking huge leaps forward.
At this point nuclear is for technological nostalgics. There's no role for it, and no need for it. It's an overcomplicated, fragile, dirty, high risk technology which requires strict political, financial, and operational oversight. And when TCO is calculated - something nuke proponents seem to avoid - it isn't even particularly cheap.
Speaking as someone from Sweden, we have already reached maximum exploitation of rivers for hydropower, and it is barely managing to maintain the grid in the winter when the wind is laying low. Expanding it more is not seen as an option, and when the few nuclear plants that is still operational goes offline there are claims that we will need to start import fossil fueled energy during some days of the year.
If you have to depend on gas for the next decade and abolish coal for that, it's still a huge win and progress with an outcome that looks much brighter than this of building a single new nuclear plant or even drowning even more money into research of something that may or may not become realistic in many decades (like fusion).
@the market: if we've learned something in the recent decades than it is that "the market" can't do shit without rules and regulations. Literally. They'll mess up everything they get into their hands and bring out the worse of it.
PS. you are aware that there are already uses for Methane and that there is even P2G generation going on where you gather CO2 from the atmosphere to generate Methane which is than burned afterwards to generate energy.