Exactly, we can debate the pros and cons of nuclear all we want here but the reality is that the supposed shift in sentiment about nuclear power is way too recent to have had any impact whatsoever on actual world uranium consumption by nuclear plants.
Planning and building nuclear plants takes a very long time and the number of new plants built, constructed, and delivered because of this new sentiment remains at zero. At best there are now more discussions about maybe building some over the course of the next few decades. To say that these discussions are concluded would be very premature.
There's also a lot of talk about small reactors but they are still in the experimental/prototype stage where there are just not a whole lot of them online (zero or close to zero?, I don't actually know). And in addition, they would need relatively small amounts of uranium (by design, they are tiny compared to conventional reactors). So, to have an impact on world uranium demand there would have to be rather a lot of them and there just aren't right now. That will take a few decades if it starts happening at all. Economically these things aren't exactly a proven solution yet.
The easier and more obvious explanation is exactly as you say. And btw. especially the dependence on Russian enriched uranium could speed up the demise of some nuclear plants dependent on that. Running nuclear plants is expensive relative to renewables. And cost increases for businesses that are already struggling tend to have obvious consequences. Short term, there are more planned plant closures than there is new planned nuclear capacity in the US. Mostly that is because a lot of older plants are struggling economically and are reaching their planned end of life.
Planning and building nuclear plants takes a very long time and the number of new plants built, constructed, and delivered because of this new sentiment remains at zero. At best there are now more discussions about maybe building some over the course of the next few decades. To say that these discussions are concluded would be very premature.
There's also a lot of talk about small reactors but they are still in the experimental/prototype stage where there are just not a whole lot of them online (zero or close to zero?, I don't actually know). And in addition, they would need relatively small amounts of uranium (by design, they are tiny compared to conventional reactors). So, to have an impact on world uranium demand there would have to be rather a lot of them and there just aren't right now. That will take a few decades if it starts happening at all. Economically these things aren't exactly a proven solution yet.
The easier and more obvious explanation is exactly as you say. And btw. especially the dependence on Russian enriched uranium could speed up the demise of some nuclear plants dependent on that. Running nuclear plants is expensive relative to renewables. And cost increases for businesses that are already struggling tend to have obvious consequences. Short term, there are more planned plant closures than there is new planned nuclear capacity in the US. Mostly that is because a lot of older plants are struggling economically and are reaching their planned end of life.