Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, as a more near term issue, say next 1000 years, what happens in case of war? Right now number of nuclear plants are so few that each could be tracked by the world, e.g. Russia getting hold of Chernobyl area was frightening. But if there are 10 times or even 100 times more number of plants in many more countries, some country will use some other's nuclear plant to prove collateral damage, what Iraq did to Kuwait…
For thirty years people have been asking that question, telling us to use "renewables" instead. Renewables aren't getting here fast enough, we can wait another thirty years burning fossil fuels or we can start building nuclear plants now.
At a fundamental level this is because you can mobilize a lot more manpower building renewables than you can building nuclear. A million homeowners adding solar power versus decade-long nuclear power plant projects.
During the past decade in Germany, renewables added more power generation capacity than all the remaining nuclear reactors did combined. That energy is here now, and half of it gave benefits already 5 years ago.
So I don't think it's wise to divert money from renewables and storage to build new nuclear, but keeping existing nuclear around for as long as possible is a completely different matter.