Nuclear reactions have the highest energy density of any of the technology available to mankind.
Thus, with evergrowing energy needs, nuclear power will always remain the only scalable, carbon-free technology.
In a 100 years you will look back and write Hacker News comments and say 'but they had the technology in the 60s, why were they not using it. It makes no sense'.
But since solar and wind get cheaper from the same effect, it doesn't really help nuclear much.
Batteries, like this system, convert steady base load into variable output by storing energy. Fill up at night, then output when needed during the day.
Batteries make nuclear energy more viable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear battery technology claimant,
Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
[ ] your claims are lies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
You mean this part?
Edit: this is pretty much theoretical Carno cycle and it has moving parts