If we throw a big pile of money at the problem, we get more bang for our buck from renewables. And, since wind and solar are on cost learning curves such that the more we build the cheaper it gets, the money we throw at wine and solar gets multiplied in the future by private industry.
Wind construction is fast. Solar construction is incredibly fast. Nuclear construction takes 8-15 years.
Renewables also require batteries and transmission. Batteries are getting cheap too, having dropped 89% in price since 2010. Transmission is a bit more politically tricky, but I think it's doable.
We might be able to get the US grid to 40% renewables by 2030. I doubt we'll have more than 5 GW of additional nuclear capacity in the US by 2030. The revolution will be well underway before nuclear can get its boots on.
Make work! Make more work! Make more workers make more work, so that even more workers can make even more work!
And money, of course.
Supposedly this is all about climate change and limiting or even stopping emissions, to counter climate change, yes?
While these emissions can be especially annoying when they are near you, they work globally because they give a shit about borders. Supposedly, Yes?
So, from a global ecosystem point of view, considering 'cradle to cradle' without any externalizations, what exactly is won by that, considering the emissions from producing and transporting all that stuff?
Wind turbines require large concrete foundations, you can't put them into the ground like a toothpick into a piece of cheese.
If not in some flat desert, stable roads for the construction and transport, requiring cutting down parts of the forest.
Same for the cables, no matter if over land, or underground transmission.
At Sea it's even more complicated and material intensive.
Solar is requiring large areas to be effective, similar considerations apply.
The production and transport of all that stuff, and the mining and refining of the necessary raw materials is causing emissions.
While of intermittent use, without storage, which again requires mining, refining, transport, production, transport, construction, maintenance, causing more emissions again.
Whose intermittency could be lessened by large HVDC super smart grid, but again, 'this doesn't grow on trees'!
One order of magnitude increase in production capacity would do the trick. At which magnitude of more emissions, counted over the whole lifecycle from mining raw materials, refining, producing, transporting, constructing, decommissioning?
Compared to a few 100(0) reactors, be they modular/small/gen-whatever/fast breeder/liquid salt/traveling wave/fusion/I don't care.
If the goal is to reduce emissions globally, nuclear it is!
If need be maybe implemented in a Hyman Rickover way, not some crazy lowest bidder contractors. That worked for the US-Navy, so far. Why shouldn't it for the world?
If this is The Emergency as it's supposed to be, it needs an emergency answer.
Solar/Wind it isn't.