> Sure, nuclear will run out much faster than the sun. But that "much faster" is still on the order of magnitude as the age of human civilization.

Not with what we actually know how to economically recover, AFAIK, though sources vary widely on such figures.

And yes, pumped storage takes a long time to build, but that is not a disadvantage compared to nuclear plants, as you note. Expanding transmission infrastructure also falls under the line of boring things we know how to do, if the political will is there. I am mostly just pointing out that while both require massive infrastructure investments, making nuclear truly sustainable relies essentially on speculative research in a way that solar + pumped storage does not. Plus, nuclear has other advantages (like being usable in deep space, under the ocean, etc.), which makes it feel a little wasteful to use for power generation on a planet bathed in sunlight. So I don't really understand the strong preference for nuclear that a lot of people seem to espouse.

Massive expansions of electricity transmission, and huge energy storage projects - several hundred times the size of what we have currently - cannot just be hand-waved away "boring things we know how to do". Hydroelectric storage is geographically limited, which leaves large areas without a storage solution. The strong preference for nuclear is because it avoid these difficulties which are typically ignored when renewable plans for decarbonization are proposed.