I'm cautiously but enthusiastically proponent of nuclear power for very similar reasons. Fukushima was the runner-up in nuclear disasters of all time, its long-term effects are projected to be comparatively small, and it was almost 50 years old itself. That it could withstand what it did with the comparative level of damage it suffered, relative to what it could have been, says to me that a properly designed modern nuclear power plant might have suffered even less damage. We know more about how to contain radioactive waste safely, and how to clean up leaks more effectively, but nuclear energy still lingers as the boogeyman fear of the Cold War era, and it's anethema to both major US political parties. The Right won't back it because it threatens the primacy of fossil fuels and their respective industries. The Left reviles it because of its potential environmental effects. Between the two, I sympathize far more with the Left's worries, but between modern construction techniques, modern safety procedures, and little details like most of the US not being subject to earthquakes or tsunamis, we could have reactors the next best thing to indestructible barring an apocalyptic event like the Yellowstone supervolcano blowing its top.
And ultimately, I want money going into nuclear power research because I want to see human beings in space again, and some form of nuclear energy is currently the only feasible option we have for long-distance interplanetary or interstellar travel. By the time we're ready to launch a manned or unmanned mission to another star system, we'll have worked out the kinks - and if we can just get reliable and cheap surface-to-orbit travel, we've got the biggest and baddest and cheapest nuclear waste disposal dump in existence right next door astronomically, neatly eliminating the problem of storage.