I think one of the problems is we need proof at scale. Yes there are many theoretical ways to store energy for the grid but until we see a reasonable implementation it's a hard argument to sell.
Given that renewables and storage will have to be made to work, and are likely to be cheaper, I don't see the point of nuclear in this scenario.
I don't want to be here in 30 years time wishing we'd built reactors 30 years ago (which is where we are today)
The current situation where you might regret not having built more reactors 30 years ago is not comparable. Renewables were not competitive with nuclear 30 years ago. But that situation no longer obtains.
Eventually, all fossil fuel use must be replaced, but that has nothing to do with the issue of responding to Putin that I was addressing. And the backup generation can eventually be non-fossil also, particularly hydrogen. Europe has massive amounts of potential capacity for underground storage for hydrogen, far more than would be needed.
It is my impression both pro-renewables and pro-nuclear like to downplay the resource sourcing issues.
Lithium is best for mobility applications and lithium formulations are much further down the learning curve than other chemistries.
However, all of vanadium redox, iron-air, organic polymer-based, calcium salt, and sodium chemistries are very nearly competitive, or actually competitive with lithium in various grid storage niches despite being at the very beginning of their learning curves. Is there ever going to be a shortage of iron or sodium? Or calcium or carbon, for that matter? No.