>Recent studies show that a global transition to 100% renewable energy across all sectors – power, heat, transport and desalination well before 2050 is feasible.[5][6][7][8] According to a review of the 181 peer-reviewed papers on 100% renewable energy that were published until 2018, "[t]he great majority of all publications highlights the technical feasibility and economic viability of 100% RE systems."[9] A review of 97 papers published since 2004 and focusing on islands concluded that across the studies 100% renewable energy was found to be "technically feasible and economically viable."[12] A 2022 review found that the main conclusion of most of the literature in the field is that 100% renewables is feasible worldwide at low cost.[13]

>Existing technologies, including storage, are capable of generating a secure energy supply at every hour throughout the year. The sustainable energy system is more efficient and cost effective than the existing system.[14] The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in their 2011 report that there is little that limits integrating renewable technologies for satisfying the total global energy demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

In all seriousness though, maybe it's time to accept expert oppinion on that matter.

Expert opinion being that nuclear is too slow, too costly and simply not scalable enough, while going 100% renewable is not only feasible but likely also cheaper.

https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J

https://spectator.clingendael.org/en/publication/nuclear-energy-too-costly-and-too-late

By all means, keep regurgitating misinfo pushed by conservative think tanks to funnel even more subsidies into nuclear and fossil fuels.