Even France, which never had a problem with nuclear, basically stopped building them in the 1990ies, and the only new plant coming online since then is the Flamanville EPR. It was always easy for electrical companies to stop nuclear projects and blame the Left and regulations, when in fact, the projects simply became too expensive compared to the alternatives. It's similar to the turbine car from Chrysler, where environmental regulation were cited why it stopped, when in fact, turbines still suck in partial-load situations, which is what most cars are in most of the time.
I don't think nuclear will have a great future. It might exist for some niche applications, but in most cases, it's just fricking expensive.
Maybe it's not the CO2, but the methane from cow belches. Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, although it breaks down more rapidly in the atmosphere.
While Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, it is also one which gets removed rather quickly from the atmosphere, because it gets destroyed by the sunlight and turned into water and Carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide on the other hand is stable, and if not actively extracted from the atmosphere, will stay there indefinitely for billions of years.
Now you can throw around buzzwords like deindustrialization, or you can look at the actual numbers.
Hold on to the root.