Timehorizons are, however, important.
The french drive for nuclear and the danish drive for wind were preticipated by the same event - the 1970's oil crisis, and the net result of those policies was the near total decarbonization of french electricity in not much over 15 years, while after forty years Denmark still has among the highest emissions per KWH hour in the EU. And the projections for the carbon intensity, and price, of danish electricity in 2026 are still much, much worse than the present situation in France - For emissions, by a factor of at least 5.

Insisting that renewables are the answer means that we are choosing to use coal and gas in the decades it will take to mature those technologies, and the compounded carbon in the atmosphere from those decades of buisness as usual will stay there for centuries to millenia - this is not being green, it is, quite simply, a crime against the planet.

We know what it takes to kick the coal habit - and it is imperative that we use those tools, even if they are not the most politically popular at the moment.

Just to put the boot in, I am going to point out that the very same advanced grid and storage technologies that would also serve admirably to make nuclear power both more economical and more enviormentially friendly by fitting the infamous baseload supply curve that is economically optimal for nuclear to the actual demandcurve without the use of fossile based middle and peak producing powerplant. In fact, developments along these lines help nuclear far more than they do wind, because the total amount of MWH that a nuke based grid needs to store or otherwise shift in time is both smaller and a fixed quantity, which helps a lot with the economics.