The nuclear renaissance was pitched to the public at a $4 billion/gigawatt reactor price point, so we're now approaching a 4x cost.

Nuclear bad news 2: Small modular reactors, pitched as a low-waste future version of nuclear power, are actually likely to compound nuclear waste, according to a peer-reviewed analysis.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/smaller-reactors-may-still-have-a-big-nuclear-waste-problem/

SMRs have some economic problems as well. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/first-major-modular-nuclear-project-having-difficulty-retaining-backers/

A balanced look at the leading SMR project, which promises a reactor in 2029. Far too early to tell if they will meet their cost promises. https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-makes-public-debut-but-requires-a-lot-of-financing-to-launch-smal/624568/

The area of uncertainty is lifetime extension for existing nuclear power plants. Unlike New construction, just keeping these open is cost competitive with new renewables.

(see yellow dots on thus graph)

Here's an informed skeptical take from Amory Lovins on just how long that can last. https://www.energyintel.com/00000180-f7a8-d67b-a3cd-f7faad650000m

Meanwhile the costs of solar and wind power continue to plunge and both distributed sourcing and battery storage provide an alternative to the "baseload" power nuclear backers claim is necessary.

As I've said before, activist effort is far better spent on retiring coal and gas plants than nuclear ones right now, but there's no real case for a nuclear renaissance.