That's actually a good capitalistic approach. ... Of course, in my not-so-uninformed opinion, a nuclear industry wouldn't even exist if not for government-sponsored X,Y &Z.
So are you advocating a market based approach or a government sponsored approach? We can combine both, or course. It is the outcome, after all, that counts. Is your adherence to free-market purity such that you could not conscience any government sponsorship in reducing carbon emissions?
I believe a market is a good tool to optimise resource allocation under given constraints. Ideally, we (via our government) would set the constraints and let the market find the solution. However, we don't have perfect markets. LLCs and stock companies (and death, indeed ;-) allow owners to go for short term profit and ignore long term consequences. Also, we have principal-agent problems. So I see some arguments for government regulation, and also for government intervention to curb nervous overreactions of the marktet.
I prefer setting realistic costs for natural resource usage, if via cap-and-trade or via fossil fuel taxes, to direct subsidies. If we let government pick winners, we will see more lobbying, and more pork going to experts in lobbying, not to experts in clean energy production.
I'm very doubtful about nuclear for a number of reasons, but in particular because I don't see it scale out. Maybe nuclear power plants can be safely operated by modern first-world countries (maybe not). But do you really want to see Nigeria, Burma, Iran, Somalia, Colombia, Iran, North Korea and the Principality of Sealand build breeder plants? I would definitely prefer a technology that is less risky and less centralised.