Yes. While renewables are great supplemental energy sources, they’re high in manufacturing and maintenance cost and require maintenance that, when comparing overall output to maintenance costs, will cost significantly more than a nuclear plant in its lifespan.

Then there’s of course the environmental effects from the manufacturing process for things like solar panels and wind turbines - also shipping from all around the world, contributing to greenhouse gasses.

Then, there’s the required space to get enough power for the masses - especially in the marine environment, where we’re already arguing how lobster pots are bad for whales - imagine what a few hundred metal towers climbing from the ocean floor off the coast of Maine could do.

Then, you have to factor in power storage, since these sources don’t provide reliable, consistent energy. Current battery technology still relies on rare materials, mined in poor countries with questionable-at-best worker protections. And to provide the sheer amount of energy we currently use, that is A LOT of batteries. Yes, the technology is improving. And yes, nuclear also relies on rare materials mined from the earth, but in much lesser numbers.

All in all, per square foot, nuclear is going to be the safest, most efficient, most reliable, and most environmentally friendly energy source for the future. The sooner we start improving and adding to our nuclear energy infrastructure, the sooner we can kick our dependency on fossil fuels and other environmentally insensitive energy projects.