> Solar is also there for the long haul, though its land usage is prohibitive compared to nuclear sources.

Even just the land used to grow corn for ethanol in the US is enough to power the entire country with solar power. [1] In no sense is solar's land footprint "prohibitive", other than maybe for micro-states.

> (Wind power is a waste of money, time, and materials, but that's another topic.)

The World Nuclear Association, a group that promotes nuclear power, admits that wind power is cheaper than nuclear.

"Nuclear energy averaged 0.4 euro ¢/kWh, much the same as hydro; coal was over 4.0 ¢/kWh (4.1-7.3), gas ranged 1.3-2.3 ¢/kWh and only wind showed up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 ¢/kWh average. "[2]

Your current sources of information are lying to you. Drop them.

1. https://youtu.be/KtQ9nt2ZeGM?t=1835

2. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...