Sorry, but there are two obvious issues here (aside from the disturbing idea that one should just ignore protesters - or worse - if one does not share their beliefs).
Firstly, storage. Cheaply, yes. Safely, maybe. Cheaply and safely for the period over which it remains dangerous? NO. Spent fuel rod storage is an enormous problem for countries that have used nuclear power. How do you guarantee the security of storage for a substance that has a half-life of over 150,000 years? Waste is the problem with nuclear, and it is a problem that every country that uses nuclear energy is still struggling to deal with. When you consider the TCO for a nuclear plant, don't forget that we still have no idea how to build anything that'll last for that length of time - given that civilisation is younger than this half-life. The pyramids are marvels of human engineering - and are less than 10,000 years old. (We are just talking about the half-life - they will still be half as radioactive after that period as they are today, and still be extremely hazardous to human health.)
There have been suggestions that we should shoot the spent fuel into the Sun - just imagine the consequences if that rocket happened to explode on its way out of the atmosphere, as so many have before it.
The other issue relates to the statement that we have radioactive substances in hospitals and health facilities across Australia. Yes, this is true... but be very glad that radioactivity is not all the same. There is variation in half-life, and there is variation in the actual radioactivity, hence one can be safely scanned when passing through an airport metal detector and the detector is not going to explode taking the city with it. Storage of medical radioactive materials is a totally different (and much more soluble) problem than storage of radioactive waste from power generation. If I recall correctly, most of the stuff that Lucas Heights produces has to be used within days, because it has very short half-life - this is clearly not the same as what you end up after a power facility has finished with a fuel rod.
Thank you. That's very interesting - and doesn't even look at most of the externalities associated with dinosaur batteries.
In some places yes, in others no - although most of the world is now AC. That said, the discussion continues.
Except that renewables are already there, while your proposed alternatives cannot, will not, and do not. Coal is simply too dirty, and is a finite resource. Hydro, sure - as part of a mix. Nuclear - see above. Gas, see coal.
Australia was a world leader in solar technology until a 2013 decision that government should not waste 'scarce resources' on science. Unfortunately, while it is easy to break things it is a lot harder to put them back together; this country did have a renewables industry, in the same way as it once had a car manufacturing industry - but rebuilding it would take decades.
Thank you @anurago1 and @meltam6554 for your personal recollections of nuclear 'incidents'. The sharing of your memories adds enormously to this kind of discussion.