I disagree based on the following:
1) Nuclear power demonstrably replaces Coal Plants and other Carbon emitters if you consider Natural cas, without drastically changing the infrastructure.
2) Nuclear power is flexible enough to load follow pending the design.
3) The people complaining about Nuclear being dangerous typically seem to support killing safer Fourth Generation Nuclear Power (ask Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Democrats about the Integral Fast Reactor).
4) Nuclear is not expensive as per govt. figures, and considering that it lasts up to 60yrs or more.
5) Multiple simultaneous plant construction renders the time argument mute. If we build 8 plants simultaneously over 8years, that's on average one plant per year.
6) Nuclear supports better, efficient Land use, and doesn't Kill Endangered species, and also does not rely on the whims of the weather.
Why do I personally support nuclear power? It's because all along, for decades, we have had a solution for our energy and climate problems, yet we have chosen to listen to scare mongers. This has impeded the design and construction of the very thing we badly need, safe and plentiful energy without any funky demand response or such compromises.
Fukushimas and such, should not even be able to happen at all if the development of things like the integral fast reactor had not been stopped. We can still design and build Molten Salt Reactors that are safe and melt-down proof if we wanted to. They are designed to be melted and we don't want to cool them.
Distributed solar in micro grids is a fallacy. If you think about it, it would even eliminate wind power. Moreover it does not address the question of what places like Alaska, North Dakota, Minnesota, etc would do in the winter. The battery storage issue is a huge bug-a-boo, and has been discussed at length.