Haven’t read all of the above, but here’s my thoughts, for what they’re worth
I understand the argument that says coal stations going off due to carbon restrictions and CCS not being proven, plus our original nuclear station coming to the end of their lives we potentially have an energy gap from 2016 onwards. I also understand that renewables as at present cannot be relied upon for base load. Gas has all the problems of energy security and being paid for in a foreign currency (as the GBP is rapidly becoming worthless, this is a real issue). So the argument goes that leaves us with nuclear.
However, in my opinion (and it’s just that), the side effects of nuclear are horrendous and have not been properly addressed. Mentioned above ad nauseam are the waste issues (agree, it seems to be just bury it out of sight and leave it for future generations to deal with) plus the health problems for those unfortunate to live near the sites.
That adds up to a pretty intractable equation which is why this thread is 8 pages long. Both sides can shout as much as they like but to me it’s a pretty miserable choice; solutions can only lie in reducing consumption (will happen anyway as prices go up / if power becomes unreliable) and trying to develop an alternative, although for the life of me I can’t think what that might be.
So no, like everyone else I don’t have an answer!