this is a subject that the USA gov and China even agree on. It is such a shame westerners have such a negative reaction to nuclear energy. but it isn't as profitable as fossil fuels/selling new electric cars so :meow-shining:
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/advantages-and-challenges-nuclear-energy
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1227103.shtml
I'm not saying that nuclear is better than renewables in every way, I'm saying that it's a viable technology for certain situations, and at the very least it shouldn't be phased out until we can get rid of fossil fuels. And with some development it could be even better.
I've read a couple books on nuclear energy and read up on some of the more recent developments. As others have said, nuclear power plants are much more compact than renewables of similar output, they provide reliable baseload power without the need for storage, and they're safer for workers than wind turbines or rooftop solar. The only major problem I see with nuclear right now is cost, and if we abolish capitalism that wouldn't be an issue.
deleted by creator
I hope that we can pursue both renewable and nuclear at the same time, but I understand that in many ways renewables are a better deal if we have limited resources. If wind and solar become the primary sources of electricity we'll either need storage or some other source of power to fill in the gaps when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. Also, high-heat reactors can replace fossil fuels in many industrial processes. So each has their strengths and weaknesses and can be used in complimentary ways.
I honestly haven't looked into uranium mining much, but I do know that solar panels require mining of certain rare-earth minerals, and most wind turbines are made of composite materials derived from petroleum. Storage of waste is pretty well solved, and spent fuel can be re-processed to extract the remaining useable fuel, or burned up in fast reactors.