> Compared to renewables, grid energy would be much more centralized if it was mainly nuclear based.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. Modern nuclear reactors can also be built at a much smaller scale than previous generations. Just because this hasn't truly been implemented doesn't mean it isn't absolutely feasible at this point.

> It is much more expensive to build, especially the upfront costs. This is the real reason it is not popular.

"But it costs money" isn't really a good argument for anything in and of itself. Politicians not wanting to deal with the upfront cost of building new nuclear plants isn't really a good excuse for not doing the right thing. Under the premise that climate change is an existential threat to human civilization, switching to nuclear energy is the right thing to do whether or not it's popular. Eating healthy is not popular and costs more (in the short term), therefore no one should eat healthy?

> Nuclear is not suitable for areas with low population density, this is related to point 1.

Fine, small areas can use renewables or even fossil fuel. No one is suggesting that nuclear is a panacea. It does take care of at least 85% of the problem, and possibly more given that smaller nuclear reactors are achievable.

> Nuclear waste is a solved issue or acceptable risk according to so academics but not all.

My opinion of academics is not good. Also depends on what "solved" means.

> With nuclear energy you still have the same problem of grid storage because nuclear plants cannot be ramped up or down quickly enough, so you either needs lots of storage or gas peaker plants.

So do renewables to a much, much larger degree, and without constant output.

> Sunlight and wind are free, and some locations have an abundance of them. Uranium is not.

Nonsense. You think that all the silicon, copper, silver, and steel that go into solar panels and wind turbines are free? Do they have no repair cycle or EOL? They are not "free." Not even close. How about all the lithium for the batteries needed just to keep the lights on when solar fails? Does that grow on trees?

> Political ties necessary for most countries to source uranium fuel need to be taken into account, too.

Yeah.

> Once you build a nuclear plant you are invested in it for a decades. You cannot very easily shut it down and upgrade to a new model or use a newer technology altogether. This is one of the reasons we are stuck with nuclear plants decades ago.

We should be invested in nuclear. The trouble with things that don't have obvious long term consequences is that we tend to not take them seriously.

> The risk of a nuclear catastrophe is always there. The fact that it has been averted in most cases, does not mean the risk does not exist. Especially when you have extraordinary situations like a tsunami or a war breaking out.

All the more reason to build multiple smaller ones than having a few large scale nuclear power plants. All the more reason to invest in R&D so that nuclear can be made even safer and distributed than it already is.

We are far more at risk of true catastrophe from nuclear weapons than nuclear reactors. If climate change is an existential crisis, then we are more at risk from that than nuclear reactors being compromised by war.

Or we can choose power sources that haven't seen a meaningful leap in advancement in the last 60 years and require civilization's progress to slow to a crawl to accommodate.