Have you actually looked at the numbers for renewable energy installations, or is this just based on personal incredulity?
While the nuclear industry has been shouting about how we need nuclear, the US has installed about 20GW worth of renewable generation in one year. That is equivalent to about ten nuclear power plants (in the US, most plants are 1-2GW; a few are 3-3.5.)
40% of our installed capacity over the last 2 years has been renewable energy sources, and both wind and solar installed capacity is growing at a nearly logarithmic scale. The only thing cheaper than wind is solar, and both are continuing to get cheaper.
Those figures, by the way, are for utility/grid scale projects and do not include residential systems.
Utilities already consider this a solved problem and have now shifted focus to storage technology.
There is a strong online PR effort by the nuclear industry because they are desperate to stay in business I'm not exaggerating when I say that the blog of a guy who runs such a PR consulting firm has been featured more than once here on HN.
The nuclear waste problem is solvable but has not yet been solved in the US. Nuclear power plants are decade-scale projects and even once they sync up to the grid, it takes them another decade just to offset the carbon impact of their construction.
Nuclear power plants have very high OPEX and very deep/complex/exacting supply chains when we're seeing lots of supply chain issues due to climate change.
Reactor vessels require very high grade metal and specialized firms, and those firms have years if not decades long waiting lists. We can't just snap our fingers and create more reactor vessel manufacturers.
No wind farm or solar farm has caused a catastrophe of any sort, much less one that renders thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable for a century.
Wind and solar do not generate material that is extremely lethal and weaponizable.
The list goes on and on.