I have in the past year undergone a similar shift, so perhaps I felt more tolerant of some of the article's slickness. A few centuries of "financially expensive" nuclear energy feels like it could provide a longer runway for science to figure out some alternatives.
If the cost of storage gets cut in half in the next 10 years, we won't need subsidies, nuclear plants will simply be boondoggles. I really don't think we should invest in nuclear until we're sure the cleaner alternatives can't scale.
I am mostly worried that a fossil-fueled extinction beats science to the storage solution of your dreams. Why risk that when nuclear is available?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-lower-gas-prices-boos...