If the externalities of CO₂ emission were included in energy prices, then nuclear wouldn't seem so expensive. Let's account for the externalities, and then let all energy sources compete on a level playing field.

but then lets also factor the externalties into nuclear too. too often the tax payer ends up having to pay for decommissioning, waste management, fuel recycling and cleanup in case of accidents.

How do you even pay for ten thousand years of storage?

The same way you pay for any "perpetual" project -- you fund an investment endowment and spend the proceeds.

And replace base load nuclear power stations with what? Coal? Gas from Russia? I don't know if they have any usable geothermal resources but that would be the only sound renewable replacement for nuclear.

> And replace base load nuclear power stations with what?

Indeed, that's the fundamental question!

It's easy to be against something for its drawbacks. But a serious discussion must start from either an alternative with similar value and fewer negatives, or a plan to give up the benefits at all.

Just saying "No this, no that" is immature, in my humble opinion.

> Currently, no electricity is being produced from geothermal sources in Switzerland. [...]

> The potential for geothermal electricity production in Switzerland is very high, but there is still a great deal of uncertainty regarding the associated costs and feasibility. [...]

> Experts anticipate that, by 2030, around a dozen geothermal plants will be in operation which will produce a combined total of 800 GWh of electricity.

http://www.bfe.admin.ch/themen/00490/00501/?lang=en

(Nuclear power in Switzerland in 2015 produced 23'000 GWh.)