ad 1) Not true. It just seems cheap since it is subsidized
Definitely not. Even without any subsidies, nuclear energy remains as the cheapest source of energy in the world.
![](https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fsp13dwc202c05.providence.wikispaces.net%2Ffile%2Fview%2Fcost%2520of%2520nuclear.png%2F426491958%2Fcost%2520of%2520nuclear.png&t=665&c=9m4DQem4iPgWRA)
ad 2) You can not dispose of nuclear waste. You have to store it for thousands of years(not in the mood to look up the numbers) and take into account, what could happen in this time.
Nuclear waste is quite small in volume, and can be safely stored in remote and uninhabited areas for millions of years.
ad 3) You can say that about nearly everything. Bringing back slavery? Sure, it generates employment opportunities for lots of people.
No. The generation of thermal energy and hydro-power energy does not require as many employees as nuclear energy.
ad 1)
Ok, I am not really sure about that, but your graph is from the World Nuclear Association. That is definitely not a good source. They for sure, have hidden some costs. I e.g. don't see anything about insurance there.
ad 2)
That's just pure naive. You have to watch constantly, that it doesn't leak out. Or are you telling me, that it doesn't matter, when it leaks out in a remote and uninhabited area?
ad 3)
So, what about slavery?