CO2 is always touted as an advantage of nuclear but fuck that, it's not as significant as it seems... Some bigger advantages are: less toxins and fine dust particles than coal, less transport and mining needed for fuel (costing oil), possibility of recycling fuel (when research is not being stopped by 'greens'), and last but not least it releases less radioactive material than coal power plants!!! Coal contains small radioactive particles so the exhaust from a coal power plant is always slightly nuclear, and much more than would ever be detected around a nuclear power plant. Even with the meltdowns in history the nuclear material released is insignificant in comparison to all the nuclear material slowly released from coal.
I'd rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant, it will be better for my health and as less risky overall and I am a strong supporter research to make nuclear more renewable but at the moment it is already the best option when compared to coal plants (only natural gas plants have an advantage and in the near future geothermal, which should all be used). Nuclear has the potential to be almost entirely renewable... The raw resources can be described as 'fossil fuel' (although fossil implies from living tissue, but I digress) but can be used again and again with a breeder reactor yielding an even higher energy density and less waste. Also uranium is not necessarily the best option for power plants (Thorium has better properties for example) but was used from the start because of the option to create weapon grade plutonium. The options are there and the science needs to be explored, to dismiss this great technology without considering what it currently is and can become is crazy. There will be a time when we will not need fission anymore, when fusion is working on a commercial scale it will be obsolete immediately... But the 'green' religion will probably find fault with that too...