You see, the thing is, nuclear *is* a great idea.
But it's simply not. Tout all the vaporware you can buzzword - breeder reactors, thorium reactors, etc etc - it's still going to be more expensive than wind and solar. Build nukes as safe as you want, they're still going to be more of a risk, and still be more expensive to decomission.
Doesn't matter if solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear if solar and wind can't do the job of powering our civilization without coal/natural gas/oil or nuclear.
How do you price all the wars that are going to be fought because solar and wind are simply not sufficient for powering our civilization? Or coal.
So choose. Either we choose to proceed with Global Climate change and on our death beds feel good about having "tried" to prevent it with solar and wind power... or we actually engineer a way to avoid the worst of climate change by expanding nuclear power capacity and investing as a society in new more efficient and better nuclear power designs.
'Cause right now, in the US, it looks like we have two very messed up perspectives. Half the US is going to invest in Solar and Wind and feel a false sense of entitlement to keep living unsustainable lifestyles (because despite their low carbon emissions in their homes and vehicles they are relying on the industrial output of the other half of society which is burning coal/oil/natural gas)
And the other half is going to deny it all to make themselves feel better and burn whatever they can (including coal) to produce cheaper electricity and power industrial manufacturing.
And then both sides will continue to call the other side a bunch of idiots and they will be half right and half wrong.
Bury your heads in the sands and repeat. The two major factions appear to be seeking blissful denial rather than real solutions.