I am personally in favor of nuclear because I don't think we have solved the problems with renewables yet, our power grids are not ready to support a 100% renewable system and as of right now, electricity grids require some stable energy. Hydro can technically fill that role but that's restricted by geography, so in places where that is not an option, it's a choice of fossil fuels versus nuclear. In that context, nuclear is the lesser evil by far.

Unlike some of the other responses, I don't think we can't wait for energy storage solutions to be developed when we needed to be zero emissions, like, ten years ago. We need to use solutions that we know about RIGHT NOW, not years into the future.

It comes down to battery tech. They're betting that the battery tech we need for renewables won't be here before we can build more nuclear.

I think they're wrong. I think batteries will catch up faster than enough nuclear could come online to be useful

It makes little sense for fully functional and existing nuclear plants to not be running though because politics/cheap gas/lobbying.

About 90 terawatt hours (TWh) of nuclear generation is scheduled to retire in the next decade, more than all of the US’s current solar generation. Studies suggest that another 135TWh is probably not cost competitive with gas plants and, therefore, at risk of retirement.

This means the source of about 15% of US low-carbon electricity could shut down and largely be replaced by gas, making it harder for the US to meet its emission reduction targets.

Research suggests that many existing nuclear plants would avoid being shut down if they were rewarded for their minimal CO2 emissions. Additionally, keeping existing nuclear plants open may be one of the lowest-cost forms of carbon mitigation, cheaper than building new wind or solar plants to replace them.

Source

Yeah people were using the same argument decades ago

"Nuclear lover" is a bit harsh. Someone mentioned batteries but another area is in actually buying emissions free energy and proving it for audits or reporting.

An angle that needs to be considered is that any upgrades that need to happen to a power grid in order to connect (in the US) need to be paid for by the party adding to the grid. The US distribution grid is ancient and this actually incentivizes them to do nothing.

One of the major negatives in solar and wind power is the instability of it. I think it's overblown but is a genuine issue. Factor in the massive, massive bill the newer renewable power generator pays and it makes sense to use something more stable to recoup investment. Nuclear is then safer, capital does what it does.

There's also the negative that depending on the contracting for the batteries, the lessOR of the batteries might be able to "claim" the energy credits towards their zero energy claims. This is also how those other solar companies profit off installing them on your house, they take the "green energy credits" and can sell them.

Nuclear doesn't usually have these types of stipulations.

Fwiw most people in the corporate sustainability push (who actually give a damn that is) think net zero is impossible without a significant nuclear push.

Nuclear, like all things do, requires investment and scale to bring the cost down. Investment is necessary for iterative innovation that reduces costs, and after Chernobyl, the west at large more or less stopped building nuclear reactors. That means the past +30 years in nuclear has been more or less stagnant, so maintenance and build costs go up as everyone trained to build and work on them either moves on in their career or retires. It's a big reason why the US dumps so much money into oil, agricultural, and military spending and subsidies. Not just to funnel money to donors, although that is a big part of it, but because that industrial capacity is a national security priority. Once you lose it, it's a lot harder and a lot more expensive to get it back, with no good alternative in the meantime. That is what happened with nuclear.

And we are only now starting to see if the next generation of SMR (small nuclear reactors) can bring the cost down. Standardizing the production of smaller units that are much faster to make and deployable in more places will go a long way. Before, every single nuclear reactor was more or less bespoke, because a certain large enough size reactor grants enough operational efficiencies that it made much more sense to build large reactors with public funds to service a large area. But now government doesn't want to make those kinds of big investments anymore, NIMBYs everywhere don't want it built near them, and that is a long term strategy that requires long term commitment and public acceptance of nuclear to pull off.

As for why we need it, well, batteries are expensive and environmentally harmful to produce and very limited in supply. Renewables are intermittent and often unpredictable, and the grid demands a base load of power. Increasing efficiencies on the demand side requires public buy in and a whole lot more effort, like better insulating everyone's house. Hydro is also ecologically not great, not suitable everywhere, and demand for power tends to spike at the exact time that it is most useless - during hot dry droughts. Nuclear is the only thing that can replace fossil fuels for the purpose that fossil fuels fill in heavily renewable countries. Germany for example shut down their nuclear reactors and went back to burning lignite coal, because wind and solar could not provide the electricity they needed. Their emissions went up in 2021 and 22, despite how heavily they are investing in renewables.

Yeah this basically mirrors my thoughts too. We should be open to all options including nuclear, but it's just not the best option any more. Renewables are also still on a declining cost curve so you run the risk of having a stranded asset if you start building a nuclear plant today. I'm no expert though so I could be mistaken.