it's not self-contradictory to be eager for low-co2 energy and oppose nuclear due to its large-scale damage in case of an incident (and with Fukushima, 3Mile, Tchernobyl and various smaller incidents it's not like this is just theory)
Of course the belief that nuclear will be replaced by solar and wind is a bit naive: in the short term it's replaced by coal and gas, and only in the medium term can we hope for better
An exclusive solar and wind power grid is not more economical viable than an exclusive nuclear power grid, as is daily proven be the absent of such grids being developed. A power grid that combines solar, wind and fossil fuels are more economical viable than a power grid made by nuclear plants, and thus this combination is today out competing nuclear by a wide margin. Grid scale storage technology may in the future make solar, wind and storage a more economical viable solution than nuclear but no such power grid exist to date.
The economic viability of any energy source is depending on how the composition of the energy grid. Economic comparison between two sources is generally meaningless without the context of the grid, especially supply and demand.
The same problem for nuclear: it's not self-contradictory to be eager for low-co2 energy and oppose nuclear due to its large-scale damage in case of an incident (and with Fukushima, 3Mile, Tchernobyl and various smaller incidents it's not like this is just theory).
It's similar with GMO: there are some studies showing risks and various GMO plants have been stopped due to concerns they could be harmful. Roundup is not exaxtly harmless but rather leaves ecological deserts behind - even if you are in favour of GMOs (like golden rice) you might still oppose some of them (like roundup ready plants), specifically because of doubts about the corporate-funded science by the agri-businesses behind them. Or you might oppose them on economic/social grounds, e.g. the practice of sterilising seeds which already has driven many farmers in level 1 and 2 (aka developing) countries into economic disaster.
Trust the science? Most environmentalists will agree. Trust the science funded by and the actual implementation by Monsanto? A much harder sell, akin to trusting BP's studies on climate and emissions.