Earlier quoted context omitted.
The future is renewables but without storage (or fusion, which is realistically 40y out _if_ it works) then we're screwed and that's a couple of decades more development away. We need fission to bridge that gap or we're left relying on fossil fuels and missing our targets massively on GHG emissions (or we maintain Lockdown level restrictions .. and still have a short fall).
It's not like there are no options for storage, pumped hydrostorage works well in Germany, and building pumped storage plus solar makes more financial sense than fission. Nuclear plants just take too long to plan and build, and are extremely expensive to build and tear down.
Every time nuclear get discussed people jump between either hydrostorage or green hydrogen, but when people start discussing turning off the gas from Russia, there seems to be very little interests to actually replace gas with storage. The few calculations I have read over hydrostorage is that the amount of damns and land needed to replace all the gas plant capacity is unrealistic, and green hydro is almost 100 times more expensive than natural gas. Nuclear is expensive, but its not that expensive.
There is a strange thing with hydrostorage. To my knowledge there does not exist a single example of a commercial operation that buys renewables to pump water and then generate energy to sell when the price goes up. There does exist one commercial operation that I know where an energy company uses storage to balance their fleet of (mostly) fossil fuel plants when they need to spin down/up. It keeps their operations more stable, and they said something to the point of "In the future we might use this to buy renewables when the price is low and sell when the energy is needed".