Of course, that's ultimately it. I was just attempting to explain why this is and why there is a market failure. Because carbon externalities are not fully internalized.
I have been trying to find things to invest in in this area and its not really positive what Ive realized. We made most of the big discoveries and breakthroughs with fossil fuels and nuclear and there just isnt that many other opportunities out there to do anything with the density of ex coal which makes it hard to compete with since both ex sun and wind would need backup of either coal or nuclear which at the moments isnt factored into the price of sun and wind.
Fuell cells is also far far away for now which leaves fusion but that require ex magnetic force that can contain plasma.
In other words at the end of the day if we want to continue to live modern lives with all its benefits, if we want other countries to improve their lives too, its time to be honest and realize that fossil fuels and nuclear is going to be our primary source of energy for a long long time.
I would love to be proven wrong and would invest right away but i fear we will have to accept whatever the climate will throw at us and adopt as we have for thousands of years.
Except the biggest problems with nuclear has to do with extremely hazardous materials.
It still seems weird to call nuclear "clean", when the thing you have to obsess over is not leaking one of the deadliest materials in existence.
But I suppose you could argue it's cleaner than everything else (when considering manufacturing).
Anyways, despite being near-synonymous with "renewable", I always understood "clean" in "clean energy" to mean "doesn't pollute the atmosphere". Nuclear doesn't pollute the atmosphere, so it qualifies. Even if you extend it to "doesn't pollute the environment", nuclear generally doesn't, as the little waste that's produced is stored as a part of the process - as opposed to waste products of traditional fossil fuel plants. Some new reactor designs allow you to further burn the waste, making it almost truly non-polluting in the general sense.
In all honesty, like many pro-nuclear people, I do emphasize calling nuclear "clean energy" on purpose, precisely to counter people like 'ThomPete upthread who lump together nuclear with fossil fuels. While still having some (and admittedly dangerous if mishandled) waste, in terms of cleanness, nuclear is really much much closer to solar & wind than it is to coal and gas - it is an ecological source, and grouping it together with fossil sources makes people dismiss one of the more effective ways at generating power in climate-protecting way.
To play devil's advocate, there's a good reason to group nuclear together with fossil fuel sources: both are thermal power plants, they only differ in the source of the heat. In terms of power generation, nuclear is much closer to coal and gas than it is to solar and wind.
(The one potential environmental aspect where "thermal plants" as a category is useful is that thermal plants need a heat sink to operate, which usually means a river or a pond. On the scale of climate issues, however, this is a negligible point that I haven't even seen brought up once by anyone.)