Great idea. How?
Even China, which regularly builds new nuclear power plants, can't do it at a pace sufficient to keep up with wind power, not to mention renewables as a whole.
I talking here in terms of reported TWh delivered.
Small modular reactors https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor...
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/18/the-nuclear-fallacy-why...
> "“Small modular reactors won't achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won't be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won't be cheaper, aren't suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.”
The problem is not so much the waste, but the "black swan": each plant has a failure probability that's low - perhaps 1/10,000 or less - of a disaster that contaminates a very large area around it. The UK was tracking after effects of Chernobyl, two thousand miles away, for two decades after the incident. That has a negative effect on people's willingness to build new plants.
The real issues are quite different. Environmentalists may have pointed out some of them, but they're just the messenger in that case.