claiming there’s no downsides

Compared to nuclear? Yes, no downsides. In general? It’s not perfect of course but the best option we have.

having to invent solutions for the issue of production hours versus time of max useage

That’s like saying “nuclear has to invent solutions for the issues of meltdowns, and getting nuclear fuel, and dealing with waste material, and dealing with extremely high risk targets, and risks of earthquakes, and risks of flooding, and the need to have extremely highly qualified operators, and extreme building costs”…. I could go on.

Nuclear is the only reliable form of energy for humanity’s inevitable outward expansion

Ah yes, because nuclear fissile material is more ubiquitous in the galaxy than light.

The reason we haven’t invented a fusion plant that can pass the Q limit is because fusion never got funded for shit

Absolute nonsense, you just made that up completely. Post a source.

Calling nuclear wealthy is hilarious, neither group has oil & gas beat

“Calling a billionaire wealthy is hilarious, that’s not even in the top 500 richest people”

The nuclear industry is massively overfunded, they’ve consistently received billions in public money for years, and there’s basically nothing to show for it. It’s the carbon capture of electricity generation: cute idea, let’s keep researching it in hopes of a breakthrough, but in practice just a total waste of money at our current level of tech.

Chernobyl was a freak incident and it happened fourty years ago. We don't build reactors like that anymore. Don't use it as an example of something that happens all the time.

Meanwhile, wind turbines do fail, sometimes they catch on fire, sometimes while a worker is doing maintenance up top.

Don't get me wrong, renewable power is wonderful and solar is really catching up but it's not a miracle and they'll never entirely replace other energy sources. There's always a base load that needs to be satisfied, and nuclear is the cleanest, safest way to do it. It's even safer than lithium batteries.