I think the big issue with nuclear (that doesn't come up) is not cost or waste, but proliferation.
Even if we could build nuclear plants in the USA or Europe, we will be far less willing to lend out the technology to developing countries, especially those who are our geopolitical enemies (or in the influence of our geopolitical enemies). Actually, I don't think that will ever happen -- look at how much effort/innocent lives/etc we expended for the Iran deal.
These countries will try to source fuel from their most powerful regional neighbor, who might not be on best terms with the US, which would inflame everyone, and for that reason, US/the West will not ever give up the keys to the kingdom.
I agree that "the Iran deal" is a sore issue. But that is not the issue. Regarding climate change, I would focus much more in China and India getting nuclear power plants (which they are building right now), rather than worry about proliferation, since that ship sailed decades ago.
I should be clear, I think the US policy re: proliferation is more draconian than necessary, and will essentially prevent any new nuclear technology from being shared, worsening climate change and increasing the risk of mishaps.
Climate change is a global problem and if nuclear is going to be a part of the solution the proliferation issue is central.
Even if we could build nuclear plants in the USA or Europe, we will be far less willing to lend out the technology to developing countries, especially those who are our geopolitical enemies (or in the influence of our geopolitical enemies). Actually, I don't think that will ever happen -- look at how much effort/innocent lives/etc we expended for the Iran deal.
These countries will try to source fuel from their most powerful regional neighbor, who might not be on best terms with the US, which would inflame everyone, and for that reason, US/the West will not ever give up the keys to the kingdom.