Compared with coal and oil, and ignoring waste. Nuclear costs more than wind and solar though.

Only because externalization of costs of storage as well as start up and shut down of more consistent power sources that supplement their variable electricity generation.

Not true about waste: https://whatisnuclear.com/waste.html

What about recycling for wind/solar?

Isn't that only due to the insanely strict safety regulations nuclear plants need to adhere to? After the Fukushima disaster, France, Germany, and China stopped nuclear operations or added more regulation that increased the cost of operating their power plants (despite, of course, nuclear being on average safer than fossil fuel plants, and even hydroelectric having a bigger death toll).

Does the reason really matter all that much if we have cheaper alternatives available that are just as useful for farming?

Yes? The high cost being the result of overregulation and overzealous safety standards points to a trivial (in terms of engineering difficulty, not political difficulty) solution to reduce those costs, and nuclear power is region-agnostic, unlike solar, wind or hydroelectric. It can be utilized, along with vertical indoor farming, in areas of otherwise marginal utility.

I doubt you'll be able to muster the political will to deregulate nuclear and design and build a sufficient number of cheap nuclear plants before renewables will have made the whole thing obsolete.

I agree with the first part of your comment, though not the second. From 2000-2013, the share of global energy produced by renewables has only grown by 0.8%[0]. (Fun fact; when Germany started their nuclear phase out in 2011, they replaced the mothballed nuclear plants with new coal power plants, not renewables). There's frankly not enough time to rely on the growth of renewables; it looks like we're stuck with fossil fuels until the bitter end.

Edit: Got the dates wrong.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Linear expolation is hopefully not the right model for the growth of renewables. The price has come down a lot lately.

I think the point of the verticle farm is almost moot if you are replacing fields of crops with fields of solar panels.

Solar panels are ~20% efficient, photosynthesis is around 2% efficient. You can also put solar panels on land that is not suitable for agriculture.

That's not an accurate comparison. You are then using that 20% to power grow lights for photosynthesis. How efficient is photosynthesis using grow lights? Even if it's twice as efficient, you're then looking at 4% of 20% which is 0.8%.

Sure, this can be used used land not suitable for agriculture. I only see this really being helpful in cities that have old industrial buildings that are sitting vacant (reuse existing infrastructure and reduce transportation).

Nuclear is definitely the most fresh-water intensive power source. Waste heat water ruins downstream ecologies.