Helen Caldicott's book (linked above) has quite a bit about this. One aspect of nuclear that's never brought up is that the mining process is carbon-intensive (all gas powered machines) and very dirty. It pollutes the surrounding environment terribly. The entire process of producing uranium pellets is really toxic and unsafe.
Another aspect that's never counted in the costs of nuclear power is decommissioning. This gets passed onto the consumer in the form of rate hikes -- after the plant has been turned off! There has never been a real assessment of the costs of nuclear power that includes all these factors.
> One aspect of nuclear that's never brought up is that the mining process is carbon-intensive (all gas powered machines)
So is the process of making solar panels: there's so solar powered machine manufacturing the solar panels after all! However I would wage the ratio of carbon consumption over the lifetime of a nuclear plant is extremely favorable compared to the lifetime energy output.
> in the costs of nuclear power is decommissioning
How about the costs of recycling/destruction of solar panels? They don't last forever (far from that) and you also need to take in account that the cost of solar panels (already heavily subsidized in many countries) does not include that kind of things either. As for decommissioning nuclear plants, it's not "unknown" in any way, there are already multiple cases in the US and in Europe where plants have been stopped and decommissioned and the economic impact can be estimated and calculated.
Another aspect that's never counted in the costs of nuclear power is decommissioning. This gets passed onto the consumer in the form of rate hikes -- after the plant has been turned off! There has never been a real assessment of the costs of nuclear power that includes all these factors.