Sure, the USA got to the moon in less time, in the 60s. As a technical problem it's easily doable. Even in quantity it could probably be done. (There are some questions of making many of the larger parts at once, such as the containment vessel, and if enough factories remain which are capable of it - in the USA. If it was worldwide, that's not an issue because China now has that capability.)
On the political side, it's either impossible or pretty easy, depending on the motivation. It's currently impossible because of the nuclear boogeyman and all of the obstacles that opponents can throw out. (It is implied that these obstacles have no ultimate merit.)
However, if we had a focus on pollution-related deaths, which are like a never-ending global pandemic - 10k deaths per week from coal pollution alone - then we'd probably find the will to fix it.
Considering that (estimated lifetime) deaths by all Nuclear (including Chernobyl and Fukushima, but excluding bombs) are less than one week of pollution deaths, it'd be an easy sell if we actually looked at numbers.
In the Lazard study, do you see what they budgeted for non-panel costs in utility-grade solar? In residential the cost of the panels is often quite a lot less than the total system cost.
> Until then, it's hydro, batteries, renewables, and demand response full speed ahead.
Hydro is almost tapped out, and not carbon neutral. But I agree we should build it everywhere possible because it is dependable, and comparatively cheap.
Batteries are not gonna happen for grid-scale power. A few terawatt hours (a minimal estimate for the USA's storage needs) would be every battery produced in ten years, even with a ramp-up, and the pollution from the mining and manufacture would be huge. They're a great solution for certain storage solutions though because they're solid state unlike flywheels and pumped hydro storage. Places where convenience weighs heavily will adopt batteries.
Renewables are absolutely the answer - as much as they are. Any generation that can be peaky, should be solar and wind if possible. Like if we built desalination plants they'd be a great use of intermittent power. Or if they're just charging the storage layer. Neither is free of pollution though, like batteries they merely front-load it and appear green when operating.
You're 100% right though about full speed ahead. I'd rather start on solar today, which I don't fully believe in, than spend years arguing and be stuck where we are today.