Storage will not complete anything in time to be useful. Hydro storage is dependent on geography, and most locations are already tapped. Battery storage is much more expensive than nuclear, and requires astronomical amounts of precious mined resources.

> Storage will not complete anything in time to be useful

You have a case here, however this is even truer for nuclear reactors, especially considering the known uranium reserves (max 2 hundred years for the existing fleet).

Hydro: yes, it is not negligible (robust, vasts amounts of energy, low inertia, flexible...), especially as continental grids are quickly progressing.

Battery storage is a prerequisite for transport (Electrical Vehicles), this considerably reduces public investments. About mined resources the challenge is to ramp up mining, moreover substitutes and recycling will reduce the pressure. Case: https://twitter.com/_HannahRitchie/status/161094857979065549...

200 years is plenty of time to deploy fast neutron reactors. Hell we had a large non-experimental one in France until it was killed by ecoterrorists.

There is no industrial fast-neutron reactor, and therefore nothing (yet) to deploy.

Superphenix, in France, never reached the industrial stage. Incidents-riddled, its best performance was, after 13 years, a .31 annual load factor.

It was running properly when it was shut down. Development had it issues, but they were mostly sorted out when the entirely political decision to shut it down was taken.

During it's last year its capacity factor (.31) was way too low for an industrial reactor.