Fuel isn’t easy to source and will put us into a new dependency like gas did with russia. That’s not desirable.

Sure, but it's very little fuel when compared to coal, gas or oil. Raw Uranium is just 14% of the total energy price for nuclear energy, which means that doubling the price of uranium would add about 10% to the cost of electricity produced in existing nuclear plants, and about half that much to the cost of electricity in future power plants. For Coal/Gas plants, the fuel cost is the main cost by far.

Btw, Russia is not the main producer of Uranium. First is Kazakhstan, then Namibia, Canada, Australia and Uzbekistan

Building a reactor takes a lot of time that we don’t have right now. We need to build that capacity and we need to build it fast.

For sure, and likely they won't help or help marginally to reach 2035 goals, but they can definitely help to reach "net-0 by 2050". Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in five years or less (42 months for Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) ACR-1000, 60 months from order to operation for an AP1000, 48 months from first concrete to operation for a European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) and 45 months for an ESBWR)[47] as opposed to over a decade for some previous plants.

Look at France and their shit show of new and old nuclear projects. The company building new reactors went insolvent because it’s insanely expensive and last year they had to regularly power down the reactors because the rivers used for cooling got too hot

The cost of building new power plants is mostly impacted by delays and overruns, which are often caused by policy changes. For instance, Canada has cost overruns for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, largely due to delays and policy changes, that are often cited by opponents of new reactors. Construction started in 1981 at an estimated cost of $7.4 Billion 1993-adjusted CAD, and finished in 1993 at a cost of $14.5 billion. 70% of the price increase was due to interest charges incurred due to delays imposed to postpone units 3 and 4, 46% inflation over a 4-year period and other changes in financial policy.

The costs of decommission are included by law in the price of the energy, and the Nuclear Power Plant owners are required to set aside that money in order to smoothly decommission the plant with no extra costs.

There is still no valid strategy for securely containing the waste produced for the needed amount of time

There are secure enough strategies to contain the, honestly small, amount of spent fuel we produce today. It's just that it's scary and no one wants a nuclear deposit in their backyard, but in reality it's still orders of magnitude safer than dumping millions of tons of pollutants in the air with coal power plants.

Based on their model, the researchers estimated that 1.37 million cases of lung cancer around the world will be linked with coal-fired power plants in 2025.

How many people do you think will die in 2025 due to Nuclear Energy? How many per MW/h? And I remind you that Germany closed all Nuclear Plants before closing all Coal Powered Plants.