We have a very short timeline to do anything meaningful to reduce the impacts of the impeding climate disaster. If we want to stop burning fossil fuels in 30 years, we have to be pragmatic. I assume the question is only about nuclear fission energy production, given that fusion research is nowhere near providing anything for at least 5-6 decades, which will be too late to solve our little issue.

Without efficient storage, solar & wind are out of the question given our modern society energy needs. When you add the storage component, both technologies see their greenhouse gases emissions multiplied by a factor of 2 to 10 depending on the storage solution used.

My view is that nuclear power is the rescue parachute for the global climate crisis. It can generate a vast quantity of power for a relatively low price (the upfront cost is high, but running costs are quite low) without GHS emissions (almost all emissions are done during the building phase).

The main drawbacks are the pollution risk and the nuclear waste storage:

• Nuclear waste is a non-issue: just bury it somewhere geologically stable and forget about it for the time being.
• The pollution risk is real: we have to ensure that strict safety standards are met with oversight of national/woldwide agencies. The next generation of reactors could also be safer with no possibility of a meltdown.