Those were indeed disasters. But fear of disaster used as justification for preventing progress (eg regulation and moratorium on nuclear energy, like happened in Germany and has lead to the situation in Ukraine) is extremely myopic thinking. Besides fusion (deuterium and tritium), Uranium has the second highest energy density of substances we know of, and we already know how to use it. How energy dense is it? Check this out, a picture of how much Uranium is needed to produce the equivalent energy of 4,400 gallons of petrol.

Geothermal energy is not accessible everywhere (eg. volcanos are not everywhere, and they are also not without danger). All renewable energy sources are sporadic and unpredictable, and therefore dangerous to stability of an energy grid. There is no one size fits all, of course. And a variety is the spice of live. But, nuclear IS getting safer, and supporting that progress, for example by buying stock and supporting research and outreach, is the way to go.

I see a lot of misconceptions that organizations like Greenpeace have been pushing since the 70s still pushed today. These are mostly mesofacts.

For a theoretical basis of the nuclear argument, this is a great analysis of a chapter from a book I'd highly recommend: Unsustainable

I also recommend checking out Meredith Angwin and her book 'Shorting the Grid'