A combination of the two: Renewables and SMRs.

Nuclear is great but there’s a very small amount of uranium 235 (what is used to instantiate the chain). that’s the biggest issue, I think the relative abundance is 0.5 - 0.9% compared to uranium 238 98 or 99 percent.

Even the efficiency is like 33% where wind is 40 - 60% (depending on on shore or offshore) and solar is 20%. The main appeal here isn’t about optimization, even at the lower efficiency it produces a fuck ton of energy. 92 reactors produce the entire energy generation supply of 17%. There is approximately a thousand gas plants to produce the 40% of US energy generation, and we are talking about combined cycle level efficiencies (60%). If we doubled our nuclear power plant fleet to 200 nuclear reactors, we would generate more energy then the current leader in energy generation. Nuclear power plants produce a shit ton of energy.

The main reason to go with renewables, long term, is it doesnt use limited resources, and that there is still a lot of R&D that can’t be known theoretically, but through trial and error. With wind turbines, for example, there is so much mechanical failure as a result of the torque being generated by the wind, I wouldn’t be surprised if the turbine just breaks off from the base of the windmill.

PV cells also have a lot of R&D going for them, not mechanically, but electrically. The PV cells we commonly use they are generally inefficient because once light passes through the PV cell theres more energy that could be used. There are techniques to combat this issue by stacking multiple solar cells and running it through a wire, but that technique also costs more money.

SMRs I would consider are also the future due to lower upfront cost and maintenance costs, its easily commercializable compared to nuclear power plants (which are designed from scratch).