http://www.withouthotair.com/
This book does a pretty decent and math-based argument that the chain of reasoning for nuclear energy holds up pretty well. Have there been some new developments that suddenly made it not so?
Considering it doesn't address the cost of building the plants I'd say it isn't very compelling at all.
Heres a good article on the costs: http://theconversation.com/what-does-nuclear-power-cost-old-...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Maybe the case for fast trains stacks up (in some places), but Nuclear power just doesn't. I know some people assume that because some of the safety problems are overstated it makes it a good option, but that chain of reasoning doesn't hold.