I am not too bothered about the danger of accidents or the waste storage issue. If a nuclear power station does go bang, it does not actually kill many people. The bigger problem is that you have to depopulate an exclusion zone, more for the perceived risks than the real ones. Nuclear waste is mostly a non-issue in terms of leakage of radioactive materials. Not much of it is produced. The fissile products decay to almost nothing after a century. The longer-lasting actinides can be separated from the fissile products, and either vitrified in glass, or re-used as nuclear fuel. What I do wonder about is nuclear weapons proliferation. There are some types of reactor which do not require enriched uranium. The CANDU reactor design uses natural uranium. Thorium reactors are in theory safe in not generating raw materials for bombs. Some reactor types can be fuelled with material from old nuclear warheads. In general, however, most reactor designs, such as pressurised water designs, need enriched uranium. Uranium for power generation is enriched in centrifuges to a much less degree than for nuclear weaponry. Nevertheless, once a state has the centrifuges, it can secretly continue to make higher grade material for a weapons programme. There is an international nuclear inspection body whose job it is to ensure nuclear power stations are properly maintained, and that they are not secretly building bombs. However, to me that is not a fail-safe system, in particular when faced with an uncooperative state. Nuclear power probably has a big role to play in providing carbon-free energy to a growing world population eager to improve their living standards. But the more countries that can generate weapons grade nuclear materials, the more likely these weapons will get used, IMO.