Discuss: Future of nuclear energy (Online)

Nuclear energy was suppose to be the energy of the future. First commissioned in the 1950s, it provides unlimited amount of reliable power. The concerns for climate change due to green house gases further highlight nuclear's advantage of being free of carbon emission.

But nuclear energy can, and do incur incalculable costs when something goes wrong: Chernobyl and Fukushima are vivid examples.
Even when there are no catastrophic meltdowns, the radioactive waste, although small in quantity, will remain deadly for thousands of years to come.

Wind and solar are now capable of providing the majority of electrical power for a few moments during the day under perfect conditions. They are however intermittent in nature and requires a large amount of suitable space (see footnote for some numbers).

Should nuclear power be retained to help battle against man-made climate change? Or is the risk of accidents/attacks far too high, and nuclear waste too dangerous? Can energy storage technologies realistically solve the dilemma within the next few decades before the 2°C is breached?

Should nuclear energy be part of the solution to climate change?

------Some numbers to put things into perspective------

A single nuclear power plant like Bavaria's Gundremmingen can provide 2.5 GW of power 24/7. In comparison, the newest solar farm in China's Tengger Desert, which spans 47 square-kilometer (area of Ammersee), provides 1.5 GW of power during the most favorable operating conditions. A large wind farm in the US, Mojave, requires 13 square-kilometer for the 600 wind turbines to provide a peak power of 1.5 GW when there is optimum wind (30% of the time). As a reference, the peak demand in Germany can reach 80 GW in a winter evening. Nevertheless Germany has already successfully generated over 30% of total electrical energy from renewable sources in 2016.