I don't think we can go wrong having more options, so yes I'd support giving nuclear the same amount of subsidization that solar/wind received, and targetting i

I don't think we can go wrong having more options, so yes I'd support giving nuclear the same amount of subsidization that solar/wind received, and targetting it at the SMR market to get the benefits of standardization and off-site construction. The best case scenario is solar/wind, along with their associated storage systems, continuing to see rapid cost reductions, and nuclear, through SMRs, becoming vastly more affordable alongside them. The two classes of electricity generators would each find ideal use-cases and produce an energy system that provides electricity at a lower cost than either could provide on their own. To expand a bit more on nuclear: we've never made a good effort at bringing down its cost. The SMR option I outlined is the route to achieving that. Giant plants built mostly on-site just don't benefit from large markets the way transportable goods that can be built off-site do. The SMR industry needs subsidies while in its embryonic stage to have a chance of showing what it can do, with respect to cost-effective electricity generation, when it's more developed.