Here is an interesting publication (PDF FILE) by the Oxford Research Group which I highly suggest:
Link

The publication argues that (1) nuclear energy is not an efficient way to curb environmental damage due to toxic waste/uranium mining practices/et cetera, and that (2) using nuclear power on a mass scale would further demean the attempt to control nuclear weapons.

you mention that most presidential candidates seem open but haven't really embraced nuclear energy despite large support for it from environmentalists, scientists and others (the support is deserved - only small amounts of waste materials are generated, it's reliable and isn’t affected by weather conditions, fuel costs are low and large quantities of power are generated, it doesn't produce carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide or nitrogen oxides, and so on). but it will be a while i think before most politicians come out in favor of nuclear energy - at least until we get a new name for it. people hear nuclear and they think north korea and iran. this predisposes them to the arguments against nuclear energy: nuclear waste is dangerous and remains so for thousands of years; there are no plans for safe disposal of the waste for thousands of years; an accident could be disastrous; high costs during the build phase; high maintenance costs; decommissioning is very expensive; and nuclear power stations could be potential terrorist targets.

Nuclear plants don't just miraculously appear on the horizon. In the mining, milling and enrichment processes, massive amounts of carbon-generating energy (currently coal-powered) are needed. During construction, hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline are used by construction vehicles and equipment operation, as well as needed off-site electrical generation to supply both the construction and back-up operation of nuclear plants.

So a plant, which ties up billions of dollars of capital for many years, operating at less than full capacity starts out with a carbon-deficit. It must operate at full capacity for many years to make up for the carbons generated before, during and after operation. Decommissioning and waste transport require additional carbon-generating energy.

Uranium is a finite source of fuel - not renewable and lower grades require more energy to enrich for use in nuclear power plants. US supplies are limited and of lower grade - so we become dependent on out-of-country sources.

There are hidden costs that don't show up in the bottom line - which make is so attractive to the energy industry. Massive government funds have gone into research and development. Massive government funds subsidize uranium mining and enrichment. The government assures coverage in the event of an accident - Price Anderson Act insures and protects the industry. Let nuclear stand on its own in the free market economy and let's see how long it lasts and what the real cost of nuclear electricity is.

There is no long-term solution to the waste - no matter what the industry tries to make you believe about France or any other country - they are only working with short-term solutions to some very highly radioactive materials for tens of thousands of years, of which tiny amounts are highly toxic.

There are very real threats to health and safety, not only from routine releases allowed by regulation, but by on-site storage of waste materials in less-than-secure facilities. These plants are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction - hyperbole appropriate. There are some very terrible realities to Chernobyl that are not common knowledge. Cancers, tumors, genetic deformities are the reality of nuclear accidents.

And what does "going nuclear" mean to our democratic process - more surveillance, increased security needs. Proliferation of nuclear materials in a less than stable world makes no sense.

I could go on, but would encourage you to keep the dialogue going and do your homework. Don't buy into the industry's whitewash of the serious nature of this form of energy. Decentralized, safe, renewables are here and now.