That accusation is difficult to justify. There are plenty of characteristics of nuclear heat that warrant a look. * They are not intermittent * They can direc

That accusation is difficult to justify. There are plenty of characteristics of nuclear heat that warrant a look. * They are not intermittent * They can directly produce a continuous stream of high-grade heat for industrial processes * They have very high energy density and don't take up much space or use much raw materials * Their lifecycle energy return on investment is huge, over 50. Compare with ~8 for wind and ~4 for solar. This matters. The SMR being dangerous claim is unsubstantiated. Being smaller means they have smaller radiological source terms and are easier to cool. SMRs have been prowling around in our seas for decades with very few radiological accidents. Nuclear in general is orders of magnitude safer than combustion-based energy sources. This sounds wrong but is largely uncontested. https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy Furthermore, you should check into the sector-size pricing model used in coal, nuclear, and hydro. It shows that as a sector grows, regulations and NIMBY associated with it grows, increasing costs. There are now some indications that costs will increase around wind and solar not for safety or air quality reasons, but due to how much land and raw materials they require.