Let's imagine that Congress passed some impressive climate change bill with lots of spending, a big push to subsidize EVs, shutter coal plants, plant trees, insulate, etc. OK, fine. And then we get to 2025 and the goals are not being met, and then 2028, and we're not remotely close to the goal, and then 2030, and perhaps we managed a 20% cut (which might be possible, maybe).
People will understandably wonder if it was all worth it, for an unmeasurable change in climate.
Or, we could be REALISTIC and "listen to the science" and explain we can't do this without nuclear power, it simply is not possible. It's not a stretch goal, it's just not possible, at all. Maybe folks then would weight the pros and cons of that option and realize we probably need that route IF we mean to do something serious.
We'd start by choosing one reactor type and duplicate them, they'd all be the same plan and construction and operation, like France did. (That won't be easy.) We might invest in SMRs and build them seriously in specific locations. We'd start reprocessing nuclear waste, as France does. That hugely reduces its mass.
Then, perhaps by 2032 or so, we'd have nukes coming on line replacing coal. Meanwhile, we'd do what made sense with wind and solar and hydro and thermal. NG would start to be used primarily for spike needs. And by 2035 or so, we MIGHT be able to reduce CO2 production from the electricity side by 80-90%. Maybe.