I would too, but we're not doing it. That leaves me wondering if maybe we should plan (and commit) to build nuclear up to, say, 50% of our energy need and then

I would too, but we're not doing it. That leaves me wondering if maybe we should plan (and commit) to build nuclear up to, say, 50% of our energy need and then start to reduce that when we actually build wind/solar/hydro to replace it. Xor commit to building those renewables instead (concretely: X MWh using renewable technology Y in location Z). Or, heck, use coal and carbon capture (real stuff, not tree planting, preventing emissions elsewhere, or other cheap magic that doesn't actually take the CO2 back out of the air) in case that's the way people want to go. I don't care, just get started already. It's not my choice, I already vote for parties that want to take more action, my energy provider is one that actively builds out renewables, and I don't own an amount of land where even a single solar panel would fit. We can't do this on an individual level so I guess governments will have to decide what goes where. It's up to them, but we can't choose it do neither solution.