Concentration on solar is great but has some sub-optimalities. Concentration on an energy industry that could also provide materials for a cold war arms race was clearly a bad idea.
Concentration on solar is a media myth - maybe because, next to wind mills, photovoltaics is the most visible generator, and unlike wind mills (quite expensive, lots of space needed), pretty much every house owner could invest a relatively modest amount to put PV on their roof.
IMHO the success story isn't solar, it's lots of tools (PV, wind, water, burning waste, storage) building an energy market with many participants where for nuclear, a few large corporations can control it all.
That's what's happening in Germany, and the Big Four definitely don't like that. It's not all roses, but I prefer the situation now over the several decades of subsidies + no liability for an industry club of 4.
What is wrong with nuclear is that it has not turned out to be cost effective relative other options. The Economist, which has had a strong pro-nuclear stance for decades recently changed its mind.
"Whether it comes to benefit from carbon pricing or not, nuclear power would be more competitive if it were cheaper. Yet despite generous government research-and-development programmes stretching back decades, this does not look likely." http://www.economist.com/node/21549936
And there you have the real answer why it is not used and why uranium/plutonium is. It has very little to do with the economics and safety of energy production.
Concentration on solar is great but has some sub-optimalities. Concentration on an energy industry that could also provide materials for a cold war arms race was clearly a bad idea.
Why aren't people working on thorium reactors?