Nuclear reactors may be "safer than in the past", but there is no way they are safer than wind/solar. A wind or solar farm can't melt down spewing radiation into the atmosphere. A wind or solar farm doesn't generate radioactive toxic waste that nobody wants within thousands of miles of themselves (NIMBY), and by the way, they speculate it will finally breakdown within a mere 1,000 years. It might be a safer investment, but it is ludicrous to say it is safer environmentally.
A little heated on the rhetoric, don't you think? Yes, a nuclear core can melt down. There have been three such episodes in the past 42 years -- Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Except for Chernobyl, which is a totally different reactor design than current commercial light water reactors, no one has been harmed by the radiation released as a consequence. Also, the fact that radioactive waste storage is unpopular doesn't ipso facto make it unsafe; people are afraid of many things they should not fear. And, by the way, the decay of radioactive waste is not a matter of speculation, it is a matter of physics. We know the half-life of every radioactive waste product and can calculate the time precisely.
That said, you are correct that solar and wind do not face these issues at all. But they do have their own challenges, the prime ones being that they are not dispatchable, are variable in electrical output and don't work at all when the sun isn't shining and/or the wind isn't blowing. So you will always need baseload and reserve power plants, even on sunny and windy days. You'll also need some way to make it through the non-windy and non-sunny periods. As was discussed at length above, there is no current energy storage technology that can solve that problem. Which means that you'll continue to need another source of power besides wind and solar. Currently, your other non-nuclear choices are coal fired, gas fired or oil fired. The emissions from all those fuels contribute to climate change and have other negative effects on the environment, and their extraction has killed multiple orders of magnitude more people than were killed at Chernobyl.
Finally, it seems to me that effects on the environment are only one aspect of "safer". For example, if I have a hospital with many people on life support machines, or a subway system that constantly relies on electric pumps to keep the system from flooding, or an air traffic control tower, a "safe" power supply is a reliable power supply, one that works even at night and on calm overcast days.
In my opinion, we need a planned, integrated approach to our need for safe, reliable electric power. No one technology will completely solve our problems and none should be excluded from consideration.