Sure, but I don't think nuclear is the answer. It'd take 20 years and god knows how many billions of dollars to replace the fossil generating capacity we have now. The fundamental reason wind and solar aren't as viable for the base load is how the grid works. The electricity powering your overhead lamp in your room was literally just made in the turbine and sent to you at the speed of light. We have no large scale electric storage, there is no giant battery (yet). So in the current paradigm of power generation and distribution, we have to produce more electricity all the time above what is actually being consumed. There is a base load that powers the grid (traditionally coal but becoming more gas) and other smaller units are cycled up and down based on demand - but we are always producing 15 - 25% more electricity than we need. Instead of spending Billions of dollars on new nuclear plants to replace the existing base load - if we invested that money in electrical storage, now wind and solar are much more viable. Gas could be used to manage spikes in the demand, and the electricity could be managed from storage vs having to constantly over produce and waste energy.