I study chemistry, I told you for sure... Nuclear is a harmful process towards the environment, nuclear reactors byproducts are extremely difficult to get rid off and they're currently just being dumped on the ocean...
I can see that you're thinking in solar panels placed on Earth surface, that's why you say it's somehow inestable source of energy. But actually it's quite the opposite, there's no more stable and reliable source of energy that solar radiation. What you think about it being a raw technology with no solid concepts yet available for practical us very true tho, but the speed of development is proportional to the budget of the research, and solar energy don't get what it needs to be a reasonable alternative for our society.
Construction of said solar panels are not exactly environmentally friendly endeavor either.
Nuclear byproducts, if handled correctly, requires much less space than the massive landfills for everyday trash.
Not saying solar can't get there one day, but nuclear is currently the more viable option for mass usage.
And then the hurdle with energy storage. Let's be real, battery technology has not nearly advanced as fast in the last century.
As for maintenance, I'm not sure which requires more time and money...one plant versus its equivalence in panels, etc.
The issue is that there's not which s thing as a 'proper' nuclear waste method, waste disposal is a fancy term for a process in which we dilute the hazardous substance into the environment to such a low concentration that it ends up being harmlessly to a living organism. The issue with nuclear waste products is that they just keep being radioactive for too much time... And the rate at which they are generated prohibits a proper disposal since they just will end up accumulating reaction in our planet soil, waters, and atmosphere.
I know that solar power is not the cheap or convenient option, but is the only one that is both long-term sustainable and environment-friendly. Of course, I'm not against the development of nuclear technology as a source of energy. For instance, when there are major power shortages because of natural tragedies or some other kind of massive problem, you could use nuclear reactors as a quick response measure. What I'm against is with the constant and generalized use of it, since a environmental low-cost operational mechanism is theoretically impossible.
Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm a green planet extremist or anything, is just that only when you have a direct contact with the damage it can cause you can realize it's not such a good option.
It's great to exchange opinions with you, best regards.