There are lots of designs for completely safe nuclear plants, they are more expensive and put out less power per size but it's completely doable.

The lessons I took away from both Chernobyl and Fukushima are that human mismanagement was the cause of both of those disasters. Also that the aftermath of Fukushima was managed very well when competent (non-corporate) agencies were brought in. So please don't take those cases as examples of typical nuclear power operation. They are the exception. Nuclear very safe when managed properly. People have to screw up really badly for it to go wrong.

I'd be happy with increased solar, wind and hydro, but those are very dependent on geography. If the choice is between fossil fuels and nuclear, I'd go with the nuclear energy option 100% of the time. Canada has been operating reactors since 1968, and we have around 15 in operation at the moment. They are safe because we are good at operating them safely.

I'd recommend watching a documentary called "Pandora's Promise" it talks about older generations of environmentalists who were very anti-nuclear but then reconsidered their views when they realized that their stance simply lead to significantly increased fossil fuel use, which translates to far more harm for both us and the planet.