I'll be sure to send your assurances to my neighbor who was at Chernobyl and who just lost his vocal chords to cancer as a result. I'm sure he'll feel quite comforted that it was only "human error".
The Chernobyl reactor was a type of reactor that was never used by the west. Basically it was inefficient, and it's purpose was to produce material for nuclear warheads as much as it was to produce electricity, unlike western designs.
The other problem was the incredible stupidity of government inspectors. They literally shut down automatic safety overrides to test what would happen, and surprise surprise, it melted down. Three mile island on the other hand did what it was designed to do. The newest pebble-bed reactors are incredibly safe, and even if the operators walk off the job, a PB reactor simply cannot melt down.
Nuclear waste is not really a problem. You'll hear that it's radioactive for billions of years, but that's misleading. The deadliest particles emitting from the waste have a much shorter half-life, a few decades. The relatively harmless particles have the long half-life, but they are easily shielded by almost anything you put in their way, even cardboard. Currently waste is simply held on-site in most cases, although Yucca mountain in Nevada would be ideal.
Solar and wind are great, and they're getting cheaper; but until someone works out the problem of cheap energy storage on a massive scale, you still need a backbone for industry. Rooftop solar shingles will do a great job of blunting the huge demands of residential air conditioners in the not too distant future, but you still need something that can run 24/7.
Finally, look at France. They've been doing fine with nuclear. They still import oil of course, but with nuclear power, extensive electrified rail, and dense/walkable cities, they don't have to go into panic mode when the price of gas goes up. Plus, the founder of greenpeace supports nuclear, what more could you ask?
