Nuclear is probably the best solution, but it only works if you somehow manage to calibrate its impact on people's psychology (or just hope for no disaster to happen in the next 100 years, which is hard to to be sure about). The standard procedure in case of disaster involves a massive evacuation, cleanup, and confinement, which are costly[1], deathly[2], and traumatizing for the population[3]. All of that is probably still worth it in comparison to the consequences of global warming in regards to many factual metrics (number of deaths, purchasing power, etc), but I'm not actually sure it's worth it in regards to the only metric that actually matters: how much of a disastrous state people perceive their environment to be in.

In the case of Fukushima, Japan, which was beforehand in the process of switching more and more of its energy to nuclear, changed their stance overnight to switch back to all-fossile, because of pressure from the public opinion. If a nuclear disaster would come to happen in a country like France, the situation would probably be an absolute disaster, with people on a major psychosis and a state unable to realistically switch to another form of energy.

[1] The cost of a nuclear disaster in France (similar to the one in Fukushia) has been estimated at 430 billions euros, which is 20% of the country's economic output. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-disaster-c...)

[2] Fukushima's evacuation caused 1,600 deaths, that is more than the deaths caused by the tsunami itself.

[3] Following the Chernobyl disaster, there was a large increase of PTSD instaces, psychosomatic diseases, alcoholism, suicide, etc. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fuk...)

TL;DR: you need to somehow make people chill about nuclear if you want to argue that nuclear is a satisfying source of energy. It might still be the best option nonetheless.