

Sure if you have the infrastructure and topography to do so. But this adds to the cost.
The problem is everyone always compares solar alone to nuclear in this comparison it looks really good. However when you include the cost of storage, it doesn’t look as good.
The analyses I’ve seen suggest that we will need to build at least some nuclear to achieve the fastest and cheapest decarbonization.

If you live in California or other areas where this will cause high flood risk, it could be worth doing some planning in case you need to evacuate. In my area at least, the models are showing some terrifying possibilities for how much rain we could get. Also talk to your neighbors and see if they need support or if they can cooperate with you in providing assistance tool others in the event that something like this happens.
In terms of the bigger picture I truly don’t know… everything we’ve tried so far has failed. I guess anything you can do to throw sand in the gears of the planet destroying machine makes things a little better in the future. But the next couple decades are probably already baked in to be a bit rough at this point.