Regarding baseload: the changeover to renewables with their intermittance means a change in the whole structure of electricity production, not "unreliability" as propagandised by traditional producers. The production of wind and solar can be predicted with reasonable precision for baseload scheduling on a 24-hour scale. In fact, one of the two Danish network owners (not Green utopists in any way) prepared a study that showed that wind can supply 50% of all electricity. It's currently at around 20% there; it is higher in certain regions, for example 30% in a Northern German state - so it's not like a high percentage of renewables is untested in practice. (It's not in France.)

Regarding radical overhaul, I am thinking of decades too (two decades, at most). However, what you fail to consider is that moving from coal/gas to nuclear would be such a radical overhaul (except in France) too, and it woud take longer than say to wind - building a nuclear plant usually takes 5-10 years and incredible sums of money, while the aim is for an at least 30-year period for paying that back (for wind that is usually put at 20 years).

Change to nuclear won't influence oil use. Change from coal to nuclear would be very little in France, but much bigger elsewhere - not moderate. In fact, if that happened, we would not just face Peak Oil, but Peak Uranium too. Nuclear is a dead-end in my opinion even as an energy solution, not just as an unsolved pollution problem.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}