Nuclear is slow. Solar is fast.

In UK in 2010, 10 new nuclear plants were announced. Since then 5 older plants have been shut leaving us with 5 active. 1 of the 10 new ones started construction and it's massively over budget and delayed.

In the same time we've added about 20GW of solar.

Solar and wind don't render entire regions uninhabitable when something goes wrong.

I think the main advantage is how much easier and cheaper solar is than nuclear. Also apparently nuclear will have diminishing returns as the earth warms up, due to cooling issues.

Also with things like balcony solar, you can easily get a distributed power network.

That being said, nuclear is also great. Especially the newer powerplants behind produce very little waste material.

since there are many jurisdictions that won't build nuclear capacity for political and societal-preference reasons, rather than technical ones

Most jurisdictions aren't allowed to build nuclear, for nonproliferation reasons. That's because nuclear technology can be used for nefarious purposes, and requires a highly functioning security apparatus in order to enforce safety requirements. So as a society we've tried to keep it out of the hands of those that the great powers have decided can't be trusted with the tech.

Which then raises the uncomfortable question of whether we should trust ourselves, the current great powers, with this technology? If we plan out a 50-year useful life for a power plant, do we trust that the governments and companies operating that plant (and its supply chains and its waste management) will still be doing things safely in 50 years?

These days, I'm less sure.