All these ridiculous Rube Goldberg contraptions for solar and wind when we could just build more and different types of nuclear reactors.
Nuclear works everywhere, everytime. There is a reason they put nuclear reactors into submarines and aircraft carriers and space probes.
The first two have ready access to infinite amounts of coolant, which is absolutely not the situation "everywhere", and the last one actually never delivered more power than solar panels due to very inferior power/weight ratio of all space-based nuclear reactors produced to this date -- the most widespread space-based reactor BES-5 generated something like 7-8 W/kg.
You have just listed three types of project with access to vast resources. The number of nuclear powered vessels is vanishingly small. And spacecraft overwhelmingly use solar when they can. If your goal is to move a ship or launch a communication satellite then the last thing you want to do is add the considerable extra complexity of nuclear power. Nuclear engineering is hard.
Nuclear power produces cheap, emission-free and reliable electricity. It's as safe as wind power and it's life-cycle emissions are even less.
> https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
> https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-el...
> https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity
Fixed that for you. Nukes produce the most expensive electricity of all. Always have, counting subsidies. Their value proposition gets even worse each day, as renewables cost continues on down. They will be mothballed soon as too expensive to continue operating at all, as people choose to buy cheaper power elsewhere.
As the amount of time they can find a market for power declines, their cost per delivered KWh multiplies without bound.
They will all be mothballed by 2050 as their power cost is increasingly and, finally, overwhelmingly undercut by solar.