Additionally there is the argument of costs. Nuclear was feasible while governments heavily subsidized nucular (sorry couldn't resist). Either by not pricing in the cost for storage of burned fuel or for example insurance against costs of cleanup in case of an accident.
As with oil, coal or gas - externalities were not factored in and payed for by society. Just not with the price per kWh. While the gains were privatized.
So no. While somewhat cleaner nuclear power actually isn't a viable solution. Neither ecological nor economically from a society's standpoint.
Stating that nuclear is not economical now based on bespoke US plants that are 50+ years old is similar to the arguments against solar in the 80s and 90s. It can be SO much cheaper if properly managed. Especially as the technology is explored properly.
Nuclear can be extremely cost effective. France is currently generating 70% of their power using nuclear and is significantly cheaper than US nuclear power seeing wholesale prices around 5 cents per kWh. US just has stupid expensive plants with 100% unique parts and old designs. This is why French consumers are paying 1/3 as much as Germans. In addition France is burning their waste in breeders.
You can blame most of the costs and problems of Nuclear in the US with an obsession over protecting private interests. Especially Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas companies. Meanwhile, nationalized energy companies in France are making us all look like idiots.
The problem with nuclear is that smart people sit around thinking up all the 1% ways that the plant could meltdown and making iterative changes to designs to mitigate them. Managers generally approve them since its better not to be the person making the call on something that caused a meltdown as long as the increase in the cost is marginal. The sum total of a lot of marginal increases in the cost though is a negative learning curve.
Solar and wind don't have this because nobody worries about a solar plant blowing up and contaminating the surrounding countryside and cost a trillion dollars to clean up, so it keeps getting cheaper.
Even with increases in costs for French nuclear, they are still nowhere near being un-profitable. They are definitely having trouble commissioning new plants now that political interests are lining up against new Nuclear capability. They have even had to start authorizing coal plants to increase energy production due to lack of supply to meet demand.
To further support this, the top 4 polysilicon producers in the world are ALL in China. You can watch the price of polysilicon explode in 2008 when China got serious about pollution then drop like a rock immediately afterwards when they started making in en-masse.
The #1 problem with economics of nuclear power is the steam turbine that is attached to the reactor. They quit building coal burning power plants at the same time they quit building nuclear plants because those are coupled to steam turbines and gas turbines with an order of magnitude less capital cost became available.
Economically viable nuclear power plants for the future will require liquid metal, liquid salt, or gas cooling. Likely these will also involve some innovation in fuel processing. Research on advanced nuclear energy was stopped almost completely in 1977 in response to racist nuclear proliferation fears.
Costs for nuclear are largely two fold:
(1) Capital intensive construction (on the order of >$5 billion)
(2) Communities can revoke operating permits very near the end of completion.
Subsidies are provided to coal / natural gas in the same proportion of generation capacity within the US.
As with oil, coal or gas - externalities were not factored in and payed for by society. Just not with the price per kWh. While the gains were privatized.
So no. While somewhat cleaner nuclear power actually isn't a viable solution. Neither ecological nor economically from a society's standpoint.