The problem with nuclear is waste, and realistically it cannot be a long term solution, on. 1000 years where will we be storing the nuclear waste of which naff all can be done with it, other than storing it in large metal containers and burying it.
Actually, dealing with new and recent waste is a solved problem - technically, it's only some vociferous and poorly informed pressure groups that stop it happening. A lot of the problematic stuff is historical - from the days when (for whatever reasons, and that's a whole different discussion) disposal wasn't really considered.
Take something like the Magnox stations that have recently been de-commissioned. There are two ways of dealing with the radioactive waste :
Plan A: Ever had something you've heated up (say a chip pan), and now it's too hot to handle - so you leave it to one side till it's cooled down ? Plan A was (AIUI) to keep the machinery going while decay heat is removed, then remove the fuel and send it for re-processing. You're now left with a big concrete box with radioactive graphite bricks inside. Remove all the external stuff (you don't need the steam generators and turbines, and you don't need any of the other equipment any more - and you're left with a house sized concrete block. So post some guards (in case someone wants to graffiti it or something) for 100 years while it "cools down". Now you have a concrete box where you can cut a hole in the side, and it's so radioactive that ... people can just walk in and carry out the graphite blocks. In case the sarcasm bypasses anyone - it's no longer "highly radioactive", no worse than living in Edinburgh or Cornwall.
Plan B: You pander to the "we can't leave it to future generations" groups. So we have the equivalent of dealing with a chip pan that's just come off the boil - i.e. we do it in the most dangerous and expensive way possible. Yes, large volumes of active waste, so it'll cost a fortune to deal with. All those graphite blocks are "highly active" so need expensive storage and disposal.
This is the uncomfortable truth for some groups - radioactivity can be "high but short lived", or "long lived but low", or somewhere in between. You do not get highly active material that is also long lived - it's a candle burns twice as bright but half as long sort of thing.
Ah, but what about that fuel I neatly removed and forgot about earlier ? Again we have a solution, but pressure groups won't allow it - it seems that the only thing more frightening than the "N" word is the "P" word, Plutonium. We have been capable of building fast breeder reactors for decades, but haven't because of "public opinion". Conveniently, a fast breeder can take in much of what we currently call "waste" and use it as fuel - but as an intermediate step it creates Plutonium which it then consumes as fuel. As an analogy, when oil was first drilled for, the only use for it was for lamps. It was found that there was a component, which if not removed, would make lamps explode - so it was separated out and poured into pits and burned off. Now we call it petrol (or gasoline for our US friends). What we have with nuclear is the equivalent of pumping oil out of the ground, and pouring 99% (or something like that) of it into pits to burn it off - or for a more accurate analogy, labelling it as very dangerous and arguing over how to store it all safely.
AIUI, if we were to build a load of fast breeders, the "waste" we currently have in storage would supply our current lecky needs for about a century - without digging any more uranium out of the ground. Lets take a moment to let that sink in ...
We have, in storage, enough nuclear "fuel" to supply our lecky needs for a century. But we have labelled it as waste to be expensively disposed of.
Now, I'm getting a bit peckish so I'll just go and grab a radioactive banana. No, that's not a joke - bananas are naturally radioactive.
Done in haste, between other tasks, but I think it's roughly right and adequate for starters - see 4 more graphs below (plus a fifth one, for good measure 
