Nuclear is back on the table for a green future
Funny article in that it doesn't discuss lifecycle costs.  A side-by-side comparison of the cost of grids powered by nuclear power plant relative to those powered by wind/solar/storage is what I'd expect to see from a 'paper of record' like the NYTimes.Except in some specific cases (Finland, other Arctic regions with long periods of low sunlight) I'm pretty sure this cost comparison comes down firmly on the side of wind/solar/storage.  Storage is the main cost barrier for 100% renewable-powered grids, but this is also an area where technological development is possible.Much of the discussion of energy in the American media is pretty poor these days.  For example, the solar tariff issue on China sourced PV - there are simply no US companies making panels of comparable quality (monocrystalline Si lasts longer and is more efficient).  Concepts like requiring Chinese manufacturers to open factories in the USA if they want to sell in US markets would make sense but probably would violate some trade provision or other.Another factor that this article should have mentioned is the reliability of the global uranium ore -> fuel rods supply chain.  Costs vary significantly based on the purity of the ore (18% is the top, 0.1% is the economically viable limit) and like oil, uranium ore is not globally distributed (unlike sunlight and wind).As far as Russia/Ukraine, the real agenda the US government seems to be pushing there is using that conflict to rapidly increase LNG exports to Europe from the US West/South coast, even though energy prices are spiking due to inflation (and plausibly due to exports of crude oil from the USA, allowed under that 2015 bill lifting that restriction).  A far better plan for Europe would be to go 100% renewable asap, meaning no need for fossil fuel imports from any party.  Yes, that's technologically possible, but would require massive economic investment.