Good arguments. One to add maybe, how nuclear will remove fossil use from the industries everyone works in. Heat, , Desalination for water needed, making cleam fuels, making hydrogen for clean fertilizer. Etc
I would add: Energy security, as in years worth of fuel can be stored on-site for uninterrupted power. Additionally, we will never run out of fissile fuel. The sun will burn out before we run out. Also industrial process heat, something renewables can't do.
Can we use the waste heat from nuclear power plants to provide space heating in homes and process heat in industries? Or do we need to develop long distance (100-200 km) heat transmission for that? In that case, the total energy conversion efficiency for nuclear would go from 30-40% to 80-90%, If we used glycol or other synthetic fluid instead of water as a heat transfer fluid, we could also get the water consumption down in nuclear.
The problem with nuclear electricity is cashflow 24/7. Low $kWh needs permanent 24/7 cashflow. Generation is dirt cheap 5cents kWh. Grid supply is 50cents kWh. When customers use their BV's oversized battery every night and rooftop PV when the sun shines then grid cashflow is dead. Distant renewables and Nuclear electricity are all dead ducks. I see your graph has sunshine.