Nuclear is not economically feasible and still does have its fair share of problems. It also generates waste, even if at far less scale than fossil fuels. Wind and solar are cheap and very scalable in most countries, which makes them economically feasible (and can also accelerate a move from fossil). Don't be so quick to discard them.

As a matter of fact, last month, in Spain, we generated more energy just from wind than from nuclear. (31.7% vs 21.4%) source

Wind and solar just aren't enough.

Wind + solar + storage is both enough and beating nuclear at this point, and by the time the next nuclear power plant actually manages to get online, the calculation will be even further in favour of that mix, on account of the absolutely plummeting cost of storage, which is following the same trend as solar used to, with costs reductions >98%. Not to mention the built-in resilience you get from having a more widely distributed instead of having a few nodes producing the lion's share of your power.

I don't have any ideological opposition to nuclear. If you manage to build it without massive subsidies and taking care of your waste, feel free to build them. That's happening in exactly 0 places worldwide though.

There's no world where you could build more nuclear at the rate that would be required to fix things. It's expensive as hell and there's not enough skilled people to go around to build all of it globally.