Three Mile Island; Chernobyl; Fukushima. Do any of those ring any bells?
We could have a Chernobyl every year and come out ahead relative to coal. Coal-mining yields colossal waste and environmental ruin and coal-burning kills tens of thousands every year on top of a whole host of other problems. If this were the 90s, I'd argue that nuclear's more benign than coal by the same metrics used to decry nuclear, including with respect to pollution.
But given advances in solar/wind and new/imminent storage solutions, I think we should be doing renewables literally everywhere to the extent that is feasible.
By the time we're worrying about a 'renewables coverage gap,' we'll probably have better options than nuclear in these regions, too. It is an expensive pain in the ass, after all.
Some wag once suggested that we get rid of nuclear waste by putting a tiny little bit of it into every bottle of soda pop. It would be distributed so thinly that the health risks of the tiny dose of radiation would be insignificant compared to the health effects of the soda pop itself.