Obviously our disagreement is really about emphasis. I respect what you are trying to say, I started with your position myself. Nuclear does seem like a panacea. But it realistically takes 10 yrs to build a reactor. And you would have to build something like 400 reactors to just replace the current fossil fuel power stations. You would have to have 800 new reactors or something to have a decent electric economy (electric cars etc). These reactors have to be built and operated by highly trained people. Who don't exist right now. The workforce alone would take five years to train before you could get a decent building program going. Not to mention the stubborn opposition. It seems that when you take it all into account it would be 20 yrs before we had more than a handful of new reactors online. And you have to build electric cars, because you are moving to an electric transport system. And what about the cost of the carbon emissions over those 20 years while we wait.
Contrast this with the alternative. In those 20yrs you could have built an almost infinite number of wind turbines, solar panels insulated houses, ethanol cars etc etc.
Wind turbines, solar, etc can also be built, installed and maintained by people with already existing skill sets (laid off auto and construction workers). They don't require lengthy approval processes. Retrofitting existing houses with insulation, double paned windows etc is even easier. There were 1.4 million houses built in the US in 97 and 18 million cars. Half of that effort can be diverted to these low tech solutions. You can be reducing carbon output today. Ethanol (not corn ethanol...), can be produced by today's farmers right now, can be used to fuel existing cars (ie even 20 yr clunkers) right now with trivial modifications. It is all low tech and easy and genuinely clean (there is no way to dispose of nuclear waste).
Also I don't believe nuclear is any cheaper than wind. For one thing the cost of waste management and the real cost of security is not included in the calculations, and the "time" cost while we wait 20yrs. And there is the finite possibility of a major disaster, which would have the effect of shutting down all the reactors anyway, which I'm sure is not included in the cost.