> didn't read the study

> study isn't credible based on misreading of a comment about the study

No, nuclear isn't the best in $/TWh, though it is quite close. The reason it's so uncompetitive has to do with the gigantic payback period and the fact that renewables (increasingly) eat into its demand intermittently which lengthens the payback period even further.

But if you include environmental impact, nuclear is absolutely amazing. Which, if you'll recall, was a dimension named as important by the GP: "[space based solar generation] would be highly useful for reducing climate change and increasing climate resilience"

It seems you have plenty of time to form your opinions about what's scientifically and economically sound based on sci-fi novels, but not enough to read the executive summary of a NASA study that actually investigated the proposal at hand.