> But the possibility and now near certainty of solar, wind and batteries being better and cheaper has put them way ahead in relative terms.

Cheaper, most certainly, but better, according to what metric exactly? PV has a higher carbon footprint than nuclear. Same for wind if you add storage. Both require at least one order of magnitude more raw materials (mostly extracted using fossil fuels). Land use is also an issue with wind turbines, not all countries can put them offshore. And then there's the geopolitical angle and the huge dependence on China. I know that the nuclear fuel supply chain has its own issues as well, but again the amount of raw materials is relatively small and fuel can be stockpiled.

It's not about being for or against renewables. They have a very real environmental footprint and we're past the point where we can simply disregard that.