Personally, I think nuclear could be fantastic, humans just cannot be trusted to manage it. Fukushima was a case of negligence, it wasn't caused by the Tsunami. The operators did not implement the recommended safety improvements because they didn't respect Murphy's law.
So when a case is made like this, "just spam nuclear reactors", you're glossing over the details that we've fucked up a lot of nuclear reactors?
And while solar is great, you still need base-load and for most places in most cases solar + storage can’t do that.
With that said, cooling reactors need a bit of rethinking with this warmup, rivers may no longer be fine to use.
The costs from climate change far exceeds the cleanup and damage costs from all nuclear accidents combined.
Even if we spammed nuclear reactors I still don't think a proportional increase in nuclear accidents would come anywhere near the damages from climate change.
The advantage of nuclear energy is that it will only pollute a large area in a disaster. While fossil fuels spread their pollution constantly over the entire planet by design, no disaster required.
Doesn't honestly seem too bad scenario. And being cynic, isn't population reduction the most effective way to combat climate change anyway?