> Why do that kind of project when you can just harvest actual fuel like oil or gas?

How can that still be a question in this day and age? Unless somebody doesn't "believe" in climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

Forget climate change, the best reason is national security. Russia's war plummeted Europe into gas shortages and price hikes. Many countries would love to not be dependent on them. And since WW2, all war requires vast quantities of oil; maybe drones will reduce that a bit, but you still need to move stuff (and people) around a lot. So you need a reliable source of energy both in peacetime and wartime.

For the US, the best reason is sustainable energy. Gas, oil and coal are not renewable, so you eventually need to adapt a new form of energy. Just transporting it is problematic, with most communities rejecting pipelines. In the meantime you're polluting your local environment and putting workers at risk. Whereas if your energy plan is largely "the sun shines", "the wind blows", and "dirt holds heat", that is ridiculously more sustainable.

The biggest problem we have is we demand too much energy. AI has made this problem way worse. Nuclear is the only thing that's going to fill the gaping chasm of demand.