Energy sources are preferred in the reverse order of fuel storage capability.
Coal: You can easily store coal in large stockpiles on site for future use. Can be delivered by ship, rail, truck. Bad.
Oil: easy to build large storage tanks to have bulk on site fuel storage. Rail, ship, truck and pipeline delivery options. Bad.
Nuclear: no idea about this one.
Gas: more challenging to store gas in quantity - it would need to be liquified to store in bulk. Centralized pipeline delivery only without LNG gassification facility. LNG could be delivered by ship, rail, or truck. Better.
Solar and wind: no fuel storage possible to smooth out the supply gaps. Best. What the fuck?
Nuclear involves ores. Uranium is relatively stable in it's natural state (mostly U238), can be enriched to fuel. It can be treated like normal rocks until its enriched (U235). Natural uranium's chemical properties as a heavy metal are more dangerous than it's radioactive properties (weakly radioactive). So you can stockpile the ore before it's milled into cake, and enriched through hex.
I am going to say that the refueling cycle for nuclear power is rather slow, and thus bad. A plant can operate for a time between refuel events. Thus, like coal and oil, plus not being able to interrupt production easily, they are bad. The "popular" options are unreliable or can be externally interrupted.
(post is archived)