Nuclear is not a stop gap. It's a solution.

I think you have it backwards, wind and solar are the stopgap.

Wind and solar require heavy mining of non-renewable, relatively rare resources that will likely run out in a couple generations. Solar panels and wind turbines have a short lifespan of a few decades, and we aren't good at recycling.

Look at the world leader in clean energy- China - and their long term plans. They are heavily invested in solar, for now, as a stopgap measure as they develop thorium reactor power and other related technologies.

I addressed this in another comment, but basically wind and solar both require large amounts of open land to generate significant amounts of electricity. They aren't a complete solution, they simply can't fit everywhere.

Most places that can't fit in fields of solar arrays or wind turbines are reliant on fossil fuels for electricity, and those circumstances aren't going to change anytime soon. The best solution right now would be to replace the coal and gas plants with nuclear.

The comment you’re responding to literally does not mention FF.

Does it need to? That's the alternative we're talking about, whether it's mentioned specifically or not.

Wind and solar are great and have become so good in the past decade that they're more cost effective than everything else, but they still aren't applicable everywhere, most often due to real estate requirements. Nuclear reactors are bulky too, but nothing compared to the amount of space you need for solar arrays or wind turbines to generate an equivalent amount of electricity. For the places where wind and solar can't fit, it's fossil fuels or nuclear.