A single plant takes much longer to build than a small wind farm. But a single plant produces much more energy than a small wind farm. But ultimately, imo, the best argument is just in terms of space efficiency. Take Hawaii, for example – how much land area can you afford to sacrifice for power generation? Space is at a premium – and the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems are very sensitive and important to protect. To get an equivalent power generation to nuclear, you would need a large area of wind and solar, which would imo be much worse from an environmental perspective.
There are concerns about the impact of mining on communities and the environment. I wouldn't say there's no reason to be anti-nuclear, but a lot of it is reactionary to the issues. I still think that any reasonable energy policy would require de-growth though, because we are using way too much energy regardless, and switching energy sources doesn't really change that problem. The reality is that most of our energy expenditure is extremely inefficient. Think about how many flights happen because people would rather have in-person instead of over the internet, or think about how many resources on a computer are spent on inefficient design practices. The main reason why graphics cards, for example, are so powerful is because of high-fidelity graphics that we really don't need. A lot of the price we're paying right now is because everything is extremely inefficient and designed more towards what can be profitable than what is actually helpful for our species, and I think that skews numbers a lot. That's really evident too when you see how much plastics and energy production has increased in the last 30 years.
