Nothing like an easy uncontentious question to start the week. 
Its complex. You got the high points pretty much right up. There are lots of competing questions and only some of them are technical.
Cost and time. Nuclear reactors take a huge amount of effort to build. The cost is very high, and the construction time is very long. The industry has never really got into its stride with known good debugged designs, and it seems almost every new reactor has some problem, involving delays and massive cost over-runs. If you are going nuclear you need long term planning and finance.
Worry about long term costs. Decommissioning reactors is a pretty much unexplored problem. So far they seem to cost about as much to take apart and redeem the land as it cost to build them in the first place. Even if that is 25 to 40 years in the future, that cost hangs over the head of the owners from day one. To the point that the capital value of a new reactor may be (in some senses) essentially zero.
Reliability issues and accidents. This is a big problem. As has been seen in Japan. Even a simple incident can cascade into a major disaster, with cleanup costs that defy the imagination. Fukushima is going to make the cleanup and compensation costs of the Deep Water Horizon look like a minor event. Nobody can realistically work out what the cost is going to be, and now the courts are sheeting home liability to the government as well. As a good estimate the cleanup costs will exceed the entire value of the Japanese nuclear industry. The costs of managing Chernobyl are similar. The new containment arch cost insane money, and needed an international effort to fund and build. And nobody knows how long it will take to sort the mess out. They are hoping that it can be done before the design life of the arch is up - which is 100 years. If you are financing a reactor the possibility that a accident can wipe the entire company out is going to keep you awake at night.
Waste. No matter what sort of reactor you have, you gets lots of very nasty hot waste. Reactors are full of neutrons, and everything becomes radioactive. Some of if is not too bad. Some of it is insanely bad. Nobody has a workable solution to the current spent fuel rods. They are simply stored on-site, initially in pools whilst the really hot stuff burns up, and then in free air to stay cool. There are a numberof projects around the word to build waste dumps. All have run into trouble, with technical problems, massive cost overruns, and inevitable NIMBY opposition. A waste dump anywhere near your home seems to be about as welcome as a half-way house for convicted sex offenders next-door.
There are significant logistical impediments to large scale commissioning of reactors. They require heroic engineering. The containment and pressure vessels are fabricated by only a handful of companies in the world that are able to handle the scale and technical challenges. The alloys needed are not cheap, and involve high cost and rare components. (Neutrons wreck everything, and making the metals strong and also resistant to embrittlement over the lifetime of the reactor is challenging.) You can’t even recycle the high cost alloys from an old reactor - they are too radioactive and contaminated.
There is continuing political opposition to nuclear. Much of this is the historical anti-nuke opposition that is rooted in the anti-nuclear weapons movement. Despite essentially no technical or logistical reason for it to be true, the anti-nuke groups consider the nuclear power industry to be an arm of the military with a clandestine purpose being the supply of nuclear materials for making weapons. Also there is much opposition on general environmental grounds - again an accident is almost always a very bad thing for just about any living creature anywhere close by.
Politically there is much traction behind ‘clean’ power, and the costs are now down to the point where solar, solar thermal, and wind are making big in-roads into the market. Add new technology for battery storage and these renewable power sources become just as reliable as traditional big inertia generation systems. They are not as cheap as a coal fired or gas fired power station, but given the current uncertainly about the long term cost of owning a nuclear power station, they don’t look too bad. The existence of government subsidies for renewables distorts the market enough that you would have to have rocks in your head to want to invest your own money in a nuclear power station.
However. Many nations have low levels of locally available power. Japan has about zero. Countries like Britain and France worry significantly about their energy security. They don’t like being beholden to imported gas or coal to run their power stations. Nuclear provides such countries with a strategically important core generation capability, one that insulates them from the problems that may result from international strife (which may be anything from politically inspired embargoes, runaway prices due to cartel action, right up to tanks roaming across the plains of Europe again.
