The way to have legacy nuclear power plants in 2050 is to build them in 2020.
Duke Energy collected almost $368 million from ratepayers in South Carolina [1] to pay for a nuclear power plant, and then gave up on it, with no recourse for ratepayers. It spent another $1 billion on the failed construction of a nuclear plant in Florida (north of Tampa). If I'm a ratepayer, I'm going to burn you at the stake (metaphorically) if you try to force me to pay for another boondoggle.
If you want to save the planet, buy every solar panel you can get your hands on and install it as soon as you can, especially if you live near a coal plant; it'll drive the plant into insolvency, no nuclear power required.
[1] https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/trigaux-abando...
But there is a solution: SMRs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
Examples of renewable in Spain and Germany have shown that you still need an alternative source of energy - you just reduce its usage.
Nuclear, on the other hand, provide the opportunity to eliminate coal/gas.
Which prompts users to install battery storage (which, in the US, is eligible for a 30% federal tax credit, not to mention state and local incentives in some cases).
If the coal plant can bill you double, so can the nuclear power plant. You can't charge me for the sun on my roof, nor the energy I store in my Powerwall.
So nuclear has to face excess production from wind/solar exported by e.g. Germany at times, and can't make up for it when wind/sun is offline, because the germans then adapt with gas. That is kind of a bad situation if you optimize for co2.
Also power walls are not a scalable solution. The raw ressource just isn't there for it to happen.