“In evaluating the safety, economic feasibility, net energy yield, and overall environmental impact of nuclear power, energy experts and economists caution us to look at the entire nuclear fuel cycle, not just the power plant operations. A nuclear fuel cycle is: the mining of uranium, processing and enriching the uranium to make fuel, using it in a reactor, and safely storing the resulting highly radioactive wastes for thousands of years (10,000-240,000) until their radioactivity falls to safe levels.
(Therefore, when the entire nuclear fuel cycle (including safely storing the nuclear wastes) is analyzed there is a very small, to zero, net energy yield.)
Note: according to a Nevada state agency report, 10 years after being removed from a reactor, a spent-fuel assembly would still emit enough radiation to kill a person standing 39 inches away in less than 3 minutes.
Bottom line: After almost 60 years of research, there is no consensus on how to store growing amounts of radioactive wastes safely for thousands of years.
Not to mention: The United States and 14 other countries have been selling nuclear reactors and uranium fuel enrichment technology in the international marketplace for decades. Much of this information and equipment can be used to produce material for use in nuclear weapons. This is one reason that 60 countries—1 of every 3 in the world—now have nuclear weapons or the knowledge and ability to build them” (Miller and Spoolman, p. 309-317).
In addition, the government gives the nuclear power industry subsidies, tax breaks, insurance (which is very costly), and loan guarantees—without which nuclear power wouldn’t be affordable. Q:Where does the government to get their money for these “perverse subsidies” ?
Miller, G. T. and S. E. Spoolman (2010). Environmental Science. 13th Edition. Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole, p. 309-317.