Well if you look at cost over-runs in Ontario, we're still paying off the interest on the debt from Darlington, which was supposed to cost $4b and ended up costing $14b. We have special debt retirement charges on bills in Ontario which are solely because of how crazy expensive it is to build a nuclear plant.

It is an error to extrapolate the costs of an entire industry from a single data. I will stick with MIT's conclusions. Do you have grounds to challenge their data?

Waste is not really manageable. Look at the controversy about dumping stuff in a pit near lake huron. That's not even spent fuel, that's other things that have become radioactive. Dumping radioactive garbage in a hole near a sensitive ecosystem is environmentally stupid. And waste gets stored on site because no one really knows what to do with it.

There is no 'controversy' except that which is invented through lack of understanding of basic geology. Given the facility is located 680 meters below bedrock in a seismographicly stable region, the presence of the lake is irrelevant. It is not 'near' a sensitive ecosystem, it is completely detached from it.

I agree it's better than coal, but with the increased viability of renewables, nuclear is a dated technology that we don't really need any more. Why trade one environmental problem for another when new technologies are actually environmentally sustainable?

Renewables are not there yet. The intermittency of their power supply and lack of universality are fundamental problems that cannot be hand-waved away, nor can the vast quantities of land they consume.

Nuclear is far from a 'dated technology'. Current known uranium reserves can power our civilization for 50-100 years. If uranium can be extracted from seawater existing technology will allow it provide power for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. If 'fast' or thorium reactors - or fusion itself - become viable, that will stretch even further.

I back my positions with peer-reviewed science. If you accept the science that climate change is a serious problem, then you must accept the science that nuclear energy is safe and economical. You don't get to pick and choose which bits of science are to your liking. I challenge you to back your arguments better.