Alright... I'll try a response (even though I can't come up with one that addresses everything).
Of course I think nuclear power is a great idea.
The "alternatives" to fossil fuel or nuclear power such as wind, solar, tidal, hydro, etc all suffer from a common set of problems:
1.) RELIABILITY
ONLY ONE of them has something that is absolutely crucial to a power generating station and that's reliability. Weather can screw with solar and wind on a day to day basis and affect non-oceanic hydro as well over a longer period of time. Only tidal energy has anything close, but I'm still not sold on that.
2.) AVAILABLE LOCATION
We figured out awhile ago that you could damn up every fresh water flow on the planet and still not come anywhere close to meeting current or future energy needs. Wind power requires vast locations with predictable winds at certain minimum speeds to work at all (good luck finding lots of those). Solar stations need vast areas with LOTS of sunlight all year long (again, good luck). Tidal energy requires coastline, not all countries have that. Not all countries have much coastline suitable for tidal power.
3.) TECHNOLOGY
Solar panels are good for ~33% at best, are complex, vulnerable to environment, and wear out. Whoever mentioned 95% efficiencies is thinking WAY into the future. The complex array of photons in sunlight is NOT easy to efficiently harness. Windmills have pathetic efficiencies. The turbines and flow systems for tidal have had some corrosion problems (yay salt water) but have fared well with fresh-water hydro.
Good stuff about nuclear:
1.) IT'S CHEAP
Even with all the incredibly stupid and restrictive rules in place, nuclear can still be brought to market and operated for profit. If someday the idiots making policy in this country will allow a scaling back of the rules from "ridiculous" to "really safe", it'd be even cheaper.
2.) NO EMISSIONS
Aside from the rare release of some short lived, gaseous isotopes, the only things coming from a nuclear power plant are heat and electricity.
3.) FUEL POWER DENSITY
Go by a coal powered power plant some day and note the MILES of cars full of coal required to power the plant EVERY SINGLE DAY. Go by a nuclear power plant and note the single flatbed truck HALF loaded with fuel that'll power the plant for 18-36 months. Any questions?
4.) SAFETY
The safety systems designed today are among the most ingenious technological innovations conceived by mankind. Three mile island proved that the safety systems designed in the 60s and 70s WILL WORK even in the face of glaring human error and a seemingly minor design flaw that causes you to melt the top 30 feet of your core into slag. Add to this the extremely robust construction of the reactor pressure vessels and the the containment buildings. Most of the
US and other non-soviet containment buildings are built to withstand a total meltdown on the inside and still maintain their integrity. A nifty side effect of this is that MOST of the containment buildings can withstand a direct impact from a fully loaded 747.
Bad stuff about nuclear:
1.) WASTE
Nuclear waste is nasty stuff. Fortunately, most of the really dangerous high level waste (HLW) is solid and easily stored/transported.
I've seen the testing videos of the nuclear waste transport and containment vessels and I can tell you that I'm impressed. They dropped these things on unyielding surfaces, dropped them on spikes, burned them in jet fuel for several hours and immediately submerge them to some depth for several more. NO LEAKS!!! The British even went so far as to hit one with a train. It was spectacular! The train was totally destroyed but the transport cask sustained only surface damage, was still perfectly intact, and sealed. The fools that protest nuclear waste moving through their locality are nothing but scared and ignorant. There's no danger to them. Even a terrorist attack would be fruitless because the containment casks are to well built.
A lot of the lower level wastes can be concentrated out of their current states and their volumes' greatly reduced. Unfortunately, nobody thinks this is a good idea because the driving forces behind nuclear waste policy are still fear and ignorance.
My idea for disposal is still shooting it into space... but I want to use a rail gun so rocket failure will be out of the question.
2.) PEOPLE ARE STUPID
Yep. Anyone reading this is visiting sciforums.com and probably knows this already. The public's fear of {cue scary music} RADIATION {/music} and all things nuclear is a huge hindrance. People don't realize that radiation is everywhere and we evolved in it's presence. More recent studies on the effects of radiation are indicating that radiation up to certain doses is GOOD FOR US and completely natural. I love the rare opportunities I get to show people just what around them is radioactive (including themselves). Such observance in person makes people a little more calm about something that is a natural occurance to begin with
Other:
Somebody mentioned fusion as the next step in nuclear and they're quite right. My study focus for my degree was fusion. The technology and resource requirements for developing fusion power as a viable energy resource for humanity are incredible. Unfortunately, this world isn't paying enough attention to it yet and the result is that there's not enough money going to programs researching fusion devices. Fusion is fucking cool as hell, but this world isn't there yet.
Ok... now I have to bug people to get back into this.