> Any green energy project that isn't nuclear is a waste of money and resources.

Nuclear's cost/megawatt is significantly higher than most other options. If anybody is reaching for nuclear it is because they are using up all available capacity through other means. Nobody picks nuclear for cost reasons.

Data centers are a pretty good match for nuclear because they run 24/7 and use a fairly constant amount of power. Solar is cheap in terms of amortized price per kWh but then you need some other solution to supply power at night or when it's cloudy, and the price of that has to be paid on top of the cost of solar.

Meanwhile nuclear costs what it does in significant part because the number of new plants is low which requires the cost of designing new reactors etc. to be amortized over fewer plants. But if you build more of them that changes.

Nuclear is by far more expensive than other green options.

It has been historically, but must it be?

I suspect that in the US nuclear is being pursued by the tech industry due to the current administration, if Biden were still in the White House, the tech industry would be pushing for offshore wind and solar panels.

Nuclear is expensive and requires red tape and a long time to bring online, but the real benefit is that it can deliver power consistently all day, unlike wind and solar. I think the ideal future includes all of these plus better storage capabilities.