Trump Orders Faster Build-Out of Nuclear Power Plants | Among a flurry of executive actions, Mr. Trump directed the nation’s nuclear safety regulator to speed up approvals for new reactors.

I'm confused as to what you think powers a star.

You don't get nearly as much power and you need huge fields of panels. They are also very weather dependant. Nuclear energy is pretty clean and safe really.

Unless we're talking about a Dyson Sphere thingy. Now that's powa'.

AI needs large amounts of reliable power (24/7 delivery). Renewables can power AI for now, but for the long run the demand is showing that expanding nuclear power is mandatory.

There is nothing woke and shit for that. The problem is that they play with safety in nuclear power.

Nuclear doesn’t make sense for that purpose because it’d have to quickly be able to spin up and down. Most reactor designs aren’t really able to do it quickly in normal operations, and those that can can’t do so in a way that makes any economic sense. They’re financially outcompeted by their alternatives.

Yes, you are right about nuclear output flexibility. Their purpose is to provide stable output, not chime in when required - and that's the problem with renewables - there is no good solution to compensate when they are not producing. Feel free to list those alternative reliable solutions.

Storage is the solution, which we can build today in a viable way and is rapidly becoming cheaper and cheaper.

And I have yet to see real energy storage data. All I read is just "energy storage is the solution (which, of course, it is, someday)" yadda yadda. So, numbers, please.

Nuclear has similar but opposite problem of renewables. Its hard to tune down and back up in power output, and its economics require near full capacity, and high market prices,to justify them.

Renewables are always better, because they don't need as high market electricity prices, they have short and modular development times, modular battery addition.

Nuclear projects require suppression of renewables to ensure limited competition in supply, when they are finally built.

What makes you think todays modern world where even cigarettes are battery powered we do not invest in battery tech?

There are too many if-s in there. When you build energy strategy for at a country level, you can't base it on if-s. And even if we had viable battery technology today, there are still problems building them at scale, their cost and their volume. As of today, the more renewables you have, more expensive stable energy gets or you simply burn coal or gas when required.

This isn't even remotely true. Japan builds nuclear reactor in average of 5 years.

Edit for the down vote brigade:

80% or all nuclear reactors go from official planning to commercial production in under 10 years.

The longest process in building a nuclear reactor is cutting through red tape and getting permits cause of all the NIMBY and idiots progating mytha and lies about nuclear that originate in fossil fuels lobby.

Nuclear is the most ecologically friendly and safe power generation source we have until industrial scale fusion gets hammered out.

Again, what energy storage are you taking about? See my other reply about it. But perhaps a combination of both might be feasible. And you're right, we're late in any case, some countries even stupidly so by closing nuclear power plants for populist reason.

What viable solution we have for i.e. a week worth of energy in worst case scenario? Let's take Slovenia for example with yearly consumption of 12.95 TWh, a week worth of energy would be 248 GWh. And during winter this number is probably higher. How would you store it? Note that US consumption is twice as high and population is x150.

In what way does nuclear get less feasible? It's the safest form of power per kw even when you weigh down the stats with crap like Chernobyl that never would have left drawing paper in the west, and uses the least amount of land so that low carbon footprint means something where we aren't tearing down trees as power demands expand.