That's an ironic username.

So much wrong with this.

Nuclear is clearly the most 'low-carbon' energy that exists, and every systematic analysis has shown it as such.

I'm not gone address your bad economics.

> peak uranium

Peak uranium is nonsense. Just like peak coal and peak oil. We have unlimited amount of nuclear materials, not even U-235 is close to any peak. We have unlimited U-238 and Thorium that we could use as well.

Nuclear is much less carbon intensive than fossil fuels but loses to wind and PV, no?

Edit: I misread the graph, the ranges basically overlap, wind might be slightly ahead, solar behind but probably too close to call based on the numbers in that report)

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low...

It depends a bit, practically speaking carbon is irrelevant for all three.

Both of your points are factually wrong.