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).
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.
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).
