I don't know if I want to wade in here after the twit I made of myself with 110V, but on this subject I think I can contribute in a (slightly) more informed way.
We have had numerous ship tragedies such as the Titanic, did we abandon sailing? No we learnt and moved on.
We have had numerous airline crashes, 100,000's probably killed in last 60 years of the jet age, did we stop flying? No we learnt and moved on.
A bit like the Hindenburg eh?
Can nuclear power me made significantly safer from the lessons learned from Chernobyl (yes I have been there) and Fukashima. No, we want to shut down the most practical, cost effective (but not cheapest) and reliable alternative to coal and gas fired power. Meanwhile like coal and gas, we are happy to sell it to others, but demonise it on shore.
I know my view on this is very different, and in particular different to that of @LancedDendrite
and others here, but Nuclear is un-insurable. I did a lot of reading on this after the last time it was debated here, lots of reports on the studies into the effects of Chernobyl. All the people adversely effected by Fukashima will not be properly compensated, even the Japanese can't afford that. On this basis alone, Nuclear is too expensive. If these costs were properly accounted for and attributed to the generators, every nuclear plant in the world would be shut down tomorrow (IMHO obviously).
In my view, the environmental risks associated with Nuclear dwarf the worst climate change has to offer by continued unrestrained use of coal.
And then there are security concerns. I'm sure many countries have nuclear reactors as much as a strategic defence asset than any other reason. In my view, the mere presence of a nuclear industry increases the risks of industy's by-products being deliberately mis-used, either by state or non-state players. The fact it hasn't happened since 1945 really shouldn't give anyone any comfort.
Longer term, the extra cost of securing the waste, securing the state against the threat of the industry being mis-used, all dwarf the worst of the environmental and economic risks.
If it were up to me, there would be a world wide ban on all fissile material. We'd allow the existing power reactors to serve out their economic lives, we'd use them to destroy all the world's weaponised fissile material, render all of the accumulated waste as harmless as possible, and then completely shut down the entire industry.
In short, if it's nuclear vs coal, give me dirty polluting coal any day of the week.