Yes, I see the advantage of CO2 neutrality, but:

The amount of active Nuclear repository sites for spent nuclear fuel and high level waste is... underwhelming.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

60 years time to find a suitable hole to drop the waste into and very limited success so far. Nobody wants it in the own backyard (even if it would be suited.).

The other end of the chain (mining and enrichment) doesn't look like an environmental success story either, or does it? Poisoned groundwater looks like an issue to me... also if it happens in Canada or Kazakhstan.

The dots in between... One meltdown around every 20 years (worldwide) ? - the area here is just too densely populated to risk one here. They started to dismantle the first plant in Germany in 89 - still not done.

Edit: in my eyes the cons (I just named a few of them) outweigh the advantages. I mean the co2- neutrality is a big plus, but is it enough to justify the risks and damages? Aren't there better alternatives? Am I wrong? Please bring facts.

Edit again: thinking further, for me the question to answer is not, either add more CO2 to the atmosphere or have (more) nuclear fission plants. It is the question, how to remove fossils from the energy mix without having to use nuclear fission. With the one extreme to only use what you have and its many backdraws.