That all might be true, but there are ways to improve on those points. For instance thorium reactors are much more efficient in terms of waste, and they are much safer.
A lot of problems we have with Nuclear is because the tech most widely used was created with a side goal of advancing nuclear weapon production.
I'm by no means a nuclear maximalist, but I could see better nuclear being a component of a larger sustainable energy strategy.
Some problems are complex. If you asked me in 2012 if fuel cell cars would ever exist I would have called it a pipe-dream, but now you can buy one and use it as a real vehicle in California.
I'm not saying thorium is a solution to the climate crisis. But I think the balance is a bit far in the other direction: people rule out Nuclear unnecessarily as a part of a larger clean energy strategy because of bad associations with mushroom clouds and Chernobyl/Three Mile Island.
Readily fissile materials aren't just found lying around next to the reactor though. There is a non-negligible amount of CO2 emitted to get fuel, even for nuclear power.
- you need to store radioactive waste for hundreds of years
- "safe" permanent storage sites often end up not not being actually safe 50 years later
- warming rivers by using the water for cooling may wreck local ecosystems
The only thing that is actually sustainable is not using all the energy in the first place. Bitcoin is the opposite of that.