Is nuclear energy a good choice to include, along with natural gas and other fossil fuels, for world energy supplies to provide a reliable infrastructure, regardless of weather?

To have a robust and reliable energy supply that can be delivered anywhere in a cost-effective manner cannot be done with renewables at the present time. It is a far more costly undertaking to do so, except for certain locales that have ideal conditions to employ renewable energy because of their natural abundance. This has always been the case; for example, having hydroelectric power generated in locations adjacent to powerful rivers and waterfalls is a natural partnership to exploit these natural resources in a cost-effective way, but they alone cannot provide electricity for the planet. So there needs to be a mix of solutions. To rule out some of the best options simply based on propaganda-generated fear is a crime against humanity being done by the humans to themselves, from their manipulated thinking at the hands of the extraterrestrial mind control apparatus, working relentlessly, to poison minds and then society as a consequence. Nuclear power is one of the very best, safest, and cheapest ways to generate electricity if constructed wisely and well, based on the lessons of the past. Anything can be corrupted, and that is always a wildcard to be considered. But it would be better to take the risks of setting up nuclear power plants that could be sabotaged by the Extraterrestrial Alliance but relying on belief in the divine and appeals for divine intervention and protection to help humanity get the most out of their investment and not be vulnerable.