Nuke the only option?

After the Japan disaster, the question has come back to haunt us - whether the planned addition of more than 60,000 MW of nuclear power by 2031-32 (as per
Integrated Energy Policy) is in the interest of our society? What are risks associated with nuclear parks like Jaitapur, and other ones in West Bengal, Gujarat, in a nation as populated as India? This is besides the huge cost involved in nuclear power production. Not to forget the problem of waste - Tarapur has 40 years of nuclear waste accumulated and not knowing what to do with it!

Proponents say the explosion at Japan's reactors is not relevant to India where we have safer concrete domes. Well, Kaiga dome did collapse! Also, they say that In India nuclear plants are not placed close to inhabitation.?? If it is about self-sufficiency and 'clean' (can nuclear waste ever be clean?), then nuclear is the best choice, some say.

India's nuclear programme is of 3 stages. At present we are using natural uranium. From it we get plutonium which will be used in 2nd stage reactor. From outcome of 2nd stage reactor we will be getting thorium which will be used in third generation reactor. India has a vast source of thorium which is expected to last for minimum of 460 year. The plan and design is ready for third generation reactor.And then, the nation will be self sufficient. That is the claim.

Is nuclear the only clean option? Or does the solution lie in deploying small, distributed energy sources using those available locally? Or is it in aggressively adopting renewables?