You’re considering solar/wind/hydro in isolation, pointing out the problems with each one individually. That’s not how it works.

The way anyone who knows what they’re talking about is a hybrid system where you use the pros of one to cover for the cons of another. This works. It has been studied. The solutions have been sitting right there for a while now, and we just don’t need nuclear. We need to build out the renewable tech we have. New grid improvements are also an overlooked part of this.

This has nothing to do with the safety of nuclear at all, so spare me those arguments. Those are arguments built against Greenpeace in the 80’s and 90s, and haven’t changed since. The economics of nuclear suck ass, and that’s pretty much just how it is. The US NRC has been granting new licenses, but nobody is funding them because they know how nuclear projects work out in the end. That is, double the budget, double the time.

If we were to rollback the clock to the early 80s, or even the early 2000s, I’d be all in on nuclear because we didn’t have a lot of other options on the table. Just have to push through the poor economics. The situation has changed, and we don’t need to force it anymore. Vogtle was probably the final word in the United States building out new fission reactors.