Hard to say with random "what ifs." If we're starting merchant nuclear reactors back up, because they have some life left in them and can be operated safely, I support such an operating model as it pushes high carbon energy out of the generation mix until there is more clean energy on the grid.

Illinois provides subsidies to their nuclear reactors because they are low carbon [1], the federal government is subsidizing Diablo Canyon in California [2] and Palisades in Michigan [3]. Every coal fired generator in the US is more expensive to run than to replace with low carbon renewables except the one in Dry Fork, WY, [4] so subsidies are just arguments, not real economic signals.

TLDR We're kicking the can until we can get more clean energy online, and that ramp rate continues to accelerate [5].

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/20/illinois-nuclear-power-subsi... ("Why Illinois paid $694 million to keep nuclear plants open")

[2] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-finalizes-11-billion-cre... ("US finalizes $1.1 billion in credits for California nuclear plant")

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41696884 (HN: MI nuclear plant finalizes fed loan for first reactor restart in US history")

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37601970 (citations)

[5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41602799 (citations)