You are arguing at an individual level, my arguments are at a societal level.
It’s like arguing Monero is better because it has better privacy for the individual - sure for that one use case at an individual level it is superior, but for the broad usecase of money Bitcoin is the better solution.
You’re ignoring the scaling trade offs of Solar because for your individual circumstances and calculations it’s better. That’s why you suggest small-scale hydro as the alternative as if people just have fucking rivers flowing through their 10 acre off grid properties (hint, 99.9999% of people have neither)…
If I’m truly concerned about TPTB disconnecting my power then yeah solar is better - if I’m concerned with empowering people to lead better lives then dense, abundant and cheap power is the way and that is nuclear.
You seem happier to have Billions forego energy abundance which would drastically improve their lives to live poorer but more sovereign - I reject that as it’s no better than the self-entitled attitude of the climate cultists who want us all to reduce our living standards and consume less energy for some supposed greater good.
Your greater good might be more noble and real than that of the cultists but I don’t believe you defeat this shit by making everyone live shittier more sovereign lives today, but rather you maximise the number of people whose lives get better with energy abundance which will lead them to sovereignty in future.