I know very little about nuclear power and had to study up a little. Just like climate change there are conflicting opinions that both sound reasonable to the uninitiated. My first take is that technology, site selection, and safety management have probably improved significantly since the major nuclear disasters. At least one source that did not seem alarmist brought up the fact that the supply of uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years, and I would guess that would be less if there was a big rush to nuclear power. Of course, we've seen peak oil come and go, in spite of the dire predictions. And 90% of the uranium used in the U.S. comes from Russia, so it might be a step back in energy independence. Waste disposal also seems to be an ongoing problem and it seems to be that there are large quantities "just sitting round" nuclear power plants because there is no approved way to dispose of it. And of course the waste has to be managed or sequestered for several thousand years.

I could be convinced otherwise with more information, but it makes better sense to me to see if alternate technologies in renewables become more feasible. A quote from one guy I rounded up though I don't know where or if his bias might go..

There is no shortage of ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: the essential question relates to cost,” said IEER president Dr. Arjun Makhijani. “Wind power with pumped storage, combined cycle liquefied natural gas power plants, and power plants using integrated coal gasification with carbon dioxide sequestration, all have costs comparable to estimates for nuclear power made by its advocates.” Dr. Makhijani has a Ph.D. in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley and has authored many publications on energy policy, including nuclear power and the first ever assessment of the energy efficiency potential of the U.S. economy.