Canada

Nuclear waste is way overblown as a concern. The total volume of waste is miniscule, relative to the power generated. Nuclear also uses almost no land for the reactor, compared with solar, and is essentially 100% dependable 24/7/365.

Solar is great, and costs are diminishing incredibly rapidly. And if the news of sodium-based batteries at ~9% the cost of lithium batteries plays out, then storing solar becomes cheap. Still not dependable for Canadian winters, of course. Solar also uses lots of land, and lots of mass of semiconductors (which of course has its own climate impacts to produce, ship, and recycle/dispose of).

I'm not super looped in to the technology specifics, but I understand that some modern nuclear designs are meltdown proof, too, so there isn't really any rational NIMBY case to be made against them.

Having read the whole article, they don't have any specifics that justify their concerns. They quote the price of nuclear facility construction, but don't contrast those costs against any competing technologies, so the numbers are effectively meaningless. They complain about nuclear waste, but their only evidence is quoting NIMBYs who don't want a facility put in close to them.

I'm open to being convinced that nuclear isn't in Canada's interests, but this article did not make a compelling case.