Renewables needing expensive storage isn’t an opinion either.

We all want a clean, efficient, and reliable power grid. Renewables should be a big part, and I’d prefer not having a bunch of hydrocarbons being burned whenever renewables don’t even cover the base load.

Nuclear is subsidized? I think you’ve got that backwards. Renewables are HEAVILY subsidized in many places (rightfully so), nuclear isn’t.

Nuclear would be, in fact, the cheapest form of generation if you factor in storage which is a requirement for a functional grid based on renewables, and aforementioned regulatory handicaps weren’t in place.

A grid based on nuclear for the base load (the always-on stuff like various industries) + renewables is a far better solution than dragging on fossil fuels for longer and longer, or trying to make 100% renewables work with gigantic amounts of expensive storage.

The difference being that when you’re 10 billion into a renewables project, you usually have SOME generation already, whereas your nuclear reactor isn’t doing shit until it’s fully completed.

I don’t mind nuclear, but the fact is that the reactors take decades to build, whereas renewables can be deployed far quicker. Going all-in on nuclear, and then twiddling your thumbs for 10-15 years while the reactors are built doesn’t sound like a great idea.