At this point the climate crisis is bad enough that I won't even fight against nuclear as such. If you can build it safely I won't stand in your way. I'll be busy across the street, fighting against coal, oil & gas. Thing is, the time scale at which nuclear stations are constructed isn't at all the same as for renewables; starting the planning for new nuclear now isn't gonna put us on the right track to a livable future. Nuclear plants are huge; the big ones that would really be needed for a big shift like you describe would take a while to go online.
Which is okay I think; if anything, we'll need much more electricity in total anyhow as we electrify more processes. But we'll need more low-carbon energy much before that, now more than ever. So I'll only agree with this if it's not an either or but doing both.
Caveat: I don't trust big profit driven corporations, nor states, to run nuclear plants in an honestly safety-oriented way. I have yet to hear a proposal how the incentives could be set up to change that. If nuclear is relatively casualty-free so far, I feel that's mostly luck, and indeed there were a few close calls. Don't start arguing with me on this one please because it's not the core of my argument (here). :)