I think that renewable energy has a much larger chance of effecting change: It requires a much lower up front investment and has almost immediate benefits. A couple of solar cells and batteries can be financed by every middle class person. And additionally the construction doesn't take 10+ years, a small renewable installation delivers power basically immediately. In contrast nuclear power plants take years just for planning and have mind boggling up front costs.
A steady buildup of renewables is much more likely to be sustainable politically than a crash program of building nuclear that costs a fortune today and only shows its benefits in more than a decade.
You're ignoring one of the largest problems with renewables: they're not actually replacing fossil fuels, they're replacing nuclear power which was almost carbon neutral to begin with. The intermittency of wind and solar means the profitability of nuclear plants goes down (because the capital costs are enormous, they should be run close to max capacity 24/7).
Baseload power is still needed, just as before, but the new source replacing nuclear seems to be gas. This means, unfortunately, that the current trend prioritizing wind and solar power will mean a larger net carbon footprint when we need to reduce it. This is really bad for the future.
A steady buildup of renewables is much more likely to be sustainable politically than a crash program of building nuclear that costs a fortune today and only shows its benefits in more than a decade.