Nukes
might have been useful as a climate-change solution if they were not intimately, inextricably tied to massive, long-term (wholly legal) corruption. The bulk of the cost goes to corruption; but much worse is that they take many extra years to complete beyond what normal construction would take, because nobody actually involved wants that gravy train
ever to dry up--anyway, not until after their kids graduate college--and deliver exactly zero watt-hours of energy, in the meantime, if indeed they are ever completed at all.
The latest failed US nuke project has cost ratepayers $30B already, is nowhere near done, and most likely never will be done.
Fortunately, solar and wind projects seem thus far immune to corruption. They often start delivering power immediately after they are begun, or anyway long before the project is done. They may easily be extended after they are "done", either on-site or somewhere entirely else.
Long before solar and wind produce enough power that we have reason to worry about "grid stability", storage solutions will be coming on-line, cheaply. Factories for iron-air batteries are being constructed at a frenzied pace, but they will compete with liquified air, ammonia, hydrogen, and other solutions according to local conditions. (Ammonia and hydrogen have the advantage that they are, also, feedstock for other processes.) In the meantime, the single best possible use for a renewable-energy dollar is more solar panel; later, storage will be a good investment.
Besides generating capacity, and storage, we will need a lot of long-distance high-voltage transmission lines, and ships to carry liquified ammonia to burn at higher latitudes where solar is not practical, and where relying just on long transmission lines is too risky.