Nuclear is literally NOT renewable. It uses uranium as fuel which is a non-renewable resource. There is plenty available, especially if we start extra ring from seawater, but that doesn't change the fact that it's non-renewable.

And nuclear absolutely isn't more cost effective than solar/wind, especially if you are running into the small modular reactor thing. This is a complete Reddit meme.

By their own cost estimates the NuScale plant's main first project in Utah is going to cost $89/MWh produced over it's lifetime (or $119/MWh if you include the government subsidy).

By contrast US onshore wind is averaging about $33/MWh pre-subsidy as of 2021 according to the US DoE, and utility scale solar is coming in between $20 and $40/MWh according to the NREL.

This is all scaled by the amount of power produced, per MWh of electricity actually generated, not per MW of capacity.

If you look at cost per capacity, NuScale is tracking at $20/W (for 95% capacity factor), whereas solar is hovering around $0.9/W (20% capacity factor). So adjusting again, that's $4.3/W for "95% equivalent" amount of power from solar, which is nearly 5x lower than NuScale SMR.

If you want to argue the idea that nuclear has a place because it may reduce storage requirements, I am willing to entertain that discussion. I will disagree with you, but at least it is a valid line of discussion.

However if you are just going to continue make easily falsifiable claims that nuclear is cheap and renewable, then it isn't worth discussing anything with you, as you are just willfully ignorant.