One is how absolutely catastrophic coal fired plants are. People often talk about hypothetical scenarios with nuclear, but tens of thousands of people are dying every year as a direct result of coal power and that doesn't even take into account the long term effects of climate change. We need to be aggressively pursuing _any_ and _all_ alternatives to coal, in my opinion. This might sound a little crazy, but I almost feel the situation is urgent enough to justify the president declaring a national emergency and using the national guard to unilaterally shut down these facilities. I realize that's completely unrealistic, but I hope it conveys my sense of urgency.
Another thing I'd like to touch on is the handling of nuclear waste. It's absolutely problematic, but I'm curious about the marginal cost/risk of additional waste now that we already have to deal with it. We already have to devise a solution to the problem, so it seems like that offsets the cost of dealing with the additional waste of more reactors. Even if we didn't use nuclear power, we would be generating waste from research reactors, nuclear medicine, etc, that we would have to deal with. If you have to figure out how to safely store a ton of material for ten thousand years, does it really cost twice as much to store twice as much material?