It’s impossible to say, but it’s highly likely that an alternate history where we went much more strongly into nuclear power would have yielded far more active

It’s impossible to say, but it’s highly likely that an alternate history where we went much more strongly into nuclear power would have yielded far more active investment and development of variations on reactors than we have today. We could be much further along the fast or thorium (or something newer) reactor timeline for instance, or have more advances in safety and speed of setup that don’t exist without much larger demand. We also could’ve irradiated much more of the Earth if things had gone wrong, but ultimately I don’t think you can use the problems of nuclear today against someone who wishes we’d been all in on nuclear for the past 50 years.