This would be a good argument if it was not just plain wrong. The main reason why nuclear power plants have not been built is because they were non-competitive in cost with other more cost effective options. Coal-fired plants have been by far the cheapest option in most countries, the only problem being that they're high polluters and the costs of pollution and air quality degradation are not factored into the equation. Clean coal may be an option with new technologies.

Nuclear power however is a great energy option in additon to renewables such as wind and hydro power in many regions when the cost of oil rises above a certain price and cooling water supplies are readily available via large rivers and lakes. We're near that threshold price now and that is whay nuclear power plant designers and builders are putting nuclear power plants back on the table.

It is certainly correct that power choices are based on a number of complex decisions, some of which have are influenced by public opinion. One of the reasons why nuclear power stations of various designs were built in the 1960s into the 1970s was because of the exciting idea that nuclear power was the energy of the future and this caught the wave of an energy zeitgeist so to speak. That idea impetus in itself was not a bad thing, but required more actual examination and development.

Not all designs were equal although there was a fair amount of technological innovation in nuclear plant design and construction. Some of the early designs were flawed, most apparent in the Russian series designed reactor at Chernobyl where a sudden shutdown could actually cause, and did, a runaway reactor and quick steam buildup leading to a steam explosion exposing the reactor core and materials. Even where there were not major design flaws, downtime and plant inefficiency was often a problem, as well as the fact that there was little design standardization. Nuclear power and improved design has come a long way since then.

High initial capital cost and long lead time to build a nuclear plant is still a major factor in construction decisions. Some costs have been brought down by improvements in design efficiency and it is likely that capital cost will be brought down further by building of multiple plants with the same improved design, also considering that there are several design alternatives. In the United States a major factor in cost of fuel is that spent reactor fuel will not be refined and reused. This choice was a reasonable political decision at least at the time it was made, so as to prevent the proliferation of a fuel source with a potential use for nuclear weapons. (This consideration is resurfacing in the debate about Iran or other countries perhaps much more politically stable than Iran acquiring such fuel sources for peaceful use of nuclear power, but with an option for weapons grade fuel use.) Yet in other countries which already have a viable program of nuclear power, such as France, reuse and refining of spent fuel has not been so problematic, and their fuel costs are thus much more competitive against coal or gas, or oil.

The cost of oil (and natural gas) is increasingly a factor because of the related increase in demand for electric power as oil becomes more costly and less plentiful as an energy option. Until recently, and beginning in the 1970s an abundance of coal and gas fired plants were easily meeting the energy demands in several countries so that there was little incentive to build new nuclear plants. Their high initial capital cost and uncertainty about future energy demands meant that almost no new construction occured. An additional factor, still true today, was that the most desireable sites which had ready access to abundant cooling water and other preferable geologic siting were utilized early on.

It is likely that nuclear power today and in the foreseeable future will have a well deserved resurgence as one potential choice for power generation among several complementary options, but will not in itself be a power generation panacea for any country or region.

The global supplies of uranium-238 are such that even continuing with the number of plants we have we have only enough uranium-238 for around 42-72 years of Nuclear power. If 60% of world power was Nuclear we would have enough for about /10-18 years/. This means that it is just impractical to rely on Nuclear for our energy into the future on any large scale.

These estimates are produced with the following sources.
European Commission's Green Paper on Energy 2-3 million tonnes.
And a more generous estimate (source unknown) 4-5 tonnes.
Some people claim that there is around 17 million tonnes available across the globe, this includes things such as sea water. But its safest to work with more conservative estimates.

Okay. So assume that you're correct on all of that, aside from the fact of Fusion. While I'll accept your statement about the larder, similarly you shouldn't assume scientific advancements. That, to me, is like saying "I won't do anything to help with any problems, because they'll be sorted out in the future"

Some sources say, that the mining of Uranium requires more power than it generates. (The source is probably somewhat unreliable, and I apologize on that basis)

The economic figures also tell us that off-shore wind power generates kWh at a similar price to Nuclear, while on-shore rivals coal

Sorry if the Picture should not have been posted, I am relatively new to the site and not completely familiarized with the rules

Well, arguably that is, by extension what I am arguing.
Even in my first post, I did not really mean to explicitly imply "We are going to run out of Uranium-238 and there will never be any more!" instead what I was saying, is that the ability to produce cheap Nuclear energy has almost reached it's maximum, especially due to the limited supply of /cheap/ uranium, aka, it may well never really get any cheaper, while I would conclude that Wind Energy is still only just begining to bud.

Fast breeders could promise cheapening due to less fuel, but infact this would be completely incorrect, as most of the cost of nuclear energy is in the setup and decomissioning a fast breeder's energy would infact cost more, as the reactors are more expenseive.

Another intriguing fact is that, in the UK anyway, it might well take 15-20 years to set up the next generation of nuclear facilities.