1) there are no working thorium reactors 2) breeder reactors are hazardous 3) uranium seawater extraction doesn't exist 4) if uranium seawater extraction were made to work it would use enormous amounts of energy not reflected in this. The depressing truth is this shows that current uranium oxide reserves and nuclear tech could supply global energy needs for only 6 years.
(2) is true for current generation uranium breeders that use ill-tempered working reagents like liquid sodium. The phrase "liquid sodium" combined with "power reactor" makes me want to buy a good pair of running shoes, as Derek Lowe of "Things I Won't Work With" fame might say. Thorium is a better idea. Those molten salts are nasty but they tend to stay in one place and do not spontaneously ignite when exposed to oxygen or water.
(3) true, but rendered less important due to (1). Thorium is much more abundant than uranium.
(4) also true, but probably not relevant. I think the seawater thing is a canard. Lithium for batteries from brine on the other hand is feasible, though maybe not economical given that there are vast easier to get reserves of lithium.
That being said, I think the renewables + batteries path looks much easier to deploy given other issues such as politics, up front capital requirements, and gradual scalability.
Also AFAIK a fully nuclear grid (with no fossil peakers) would require grid scale power storage to load level since nuclear is slow at load following, but not as much storage capacity as a fully renewable grid since you don't have to bridge long periods with no sun or wind.