When discussing Chernobyl, it's good to remember that it was a reactor type more suited to making weapons-grade plutonium than producing energy - reactors of that type are not even in use in countries who are not into bomb-making. Also, the steam explosion was not the result of normal operations, but a result of an unsuccesful test that was conducted without necessary precautions, not to mention the warning signals were ignored until it was too late to shutdown.
So we have an intentionally caused meltdown that was responsible for maybe a few thousand premature deaths - some of which are yet to occur, 24 years later. Every year, in EU alone, tens of thousands of people die due to smoke particles from fossil fuels. You can't avoid those particles if you burn wood or biowaste. As for other energy sources, solar power only has a negligible EROI north of the tropic of Cancer (or south of the tropic of Capricorn) and would be most efficient in Earth orbit anyway. Wind power is avaiable only in certain geographical areas (mind the EROI: even if you can put up a windmill anywhere, will it provide more power than its construction and disposal will take?), and even then only if the wind is blowing: for example, in the coldest winter days when most power is required, it is usually quite calm. Water power has a good EROI but can only be built in certain rivers, but at least that CAN be regulated with the use of reservoirs. Tidal powerplants have also good EROI, but are really able to be constructed on ocean shores. Geothermal energy requires either volcanic activity a la Iceland or would require extensive mining into bedrock in non-volcanic areas.
Unless you come up with working fusion plant, nuclear fission is the ONLY realistic large-scale alternative energy source for replacing fossil fuels. "Renewing energy" can and should be used to supplement it, but it has several limitations. Nuclear powerplants can operate independent of the climate, geological and geographical conditions.
As for nuclear waste, when properly closed inside the terminal storage capsule, it will be possible to stand next to the capsule in a hundred years or so without risk. In a thousand years, the material inside will radiate about the same amount as background radiation (so even a crack in the capsule won't be a radiation hazard - heavy metals in groundwater will be the only real hazard from then on). Yes, it will probably be radioactive for the often-mentioned "hundred thousand years", but natural uranium deposits will stay radioactive for BILLIONS of years (otherwise there wouldn't be any U-238 to be found at all). Anti-nuclear people often make the mistake of not learning what half-life means and thus don't realize that nuclear material is either highly radioactive, OR stays radioactive for a long time. These things are mutually exclusive.
Also, the entire nuclear waste problem is acute only we stay ignorant and do not start using fast breeder reactors (which will happily consume the current "waste" as well as non-enriched uranium). Also, what's the scare with the "terminal storage"? Right now, nuclear waste that's still highly radioactive (but will be much less so after a few decades) is kept in "cooling tanks" which could be compared to keeping it in an concrete-covered swimming pool. How on earth is this a more safe storage method than burying them in bedrock, under the groundwater?
If you really assume that our current civilization won't last even a thousand years - that we would forget what "radiation hazard" means and would think of it as silly superstition - then maybe we really should let it collapse.
BTW, that "nuclear waste dumping off Somalia" justification for the rampant piracy is either a blatant lie or an urban legend or a combination thereof. A UN commission was even set up to examine the matter and they found no evidence - not even radiation - whatsoever supporting the claim. The biggest reason for local piracy is that Somalia being the Mad Max LARP it is today, piracy is just too easy and too lucrative.
