No, it isn't. It's a colossal example of both complacency at big engineering firms, and wider myopia about climate change.

Nevertheless, the >30-year old nukes still delivered what every single technology you have listed categorically failed to deliver. I have provided ample, repeated evidence of that. They failed and fossils came to the rescue. Repeatedly.

Why should they get even half the subsidy nukes get (which is what they do get), when their output is simply useless.

I've posted numbers. Please, you want to show me storage can be economically done, today, do so. Or admit you can't because it can't. We no longer have time for utopianism.