I have something of a different perspective to add here...
Solar energy requires large amounts of sun exposure, so it's never going to be a good solution in places like Northern Canada or Siberia. To be honest, anywhere north/south of respective Tropics, it might be somewhat problematic; in Europe, there are talks about building massive solar power plants in Africa and somehow sending the power over there, since there is limited amount of solar electricity that might be generated in place. Hydroelectric power plants are obviously limited in their placement, too. Same goes for wind, geothermal... There is no single good solution that would work everywhere, if we are talking about major power plants.
There is research being conducted on reactors that are able to burn most by-products of other reactions. In general, if something is radioactive enough to be a major problem, it is also a source of energy; some of those we still can not utilize, but it doesn't mean that the energy isn't there. It might be feasible to burn them in reactors that are at net loss of energy, to get rid of them, and even then, there is very little waste being produced by nuclear reactors. Still, this might be the biggest problem with nuclear reactors today.
Natural disasters and nuclear reactors - this is my biggest beef with your comment. While it is obvious that disasters do happen, nuclear power plants are not only surprisingly sturdy and well-protected (they are so over-engineered with safety measures that it's frankly ridiculous sometimes), reducing the risk of major problems (try and imagine wind turbine field after a major hurricane; now try and imagine the concrete nuclear power plant after the same), they are absolutely incapable of rendering major swathes of terrain uninhabitable for any length of time, even if maliciously attacked. Charnobyl disaster resulted in 30km exclusion zone which is now - 40 years later - one of the greatest nature preserves in Europe, with great plant and animal life diversity, and is regularly visited by tours and scientists alike. Amount of radiation released than was estimated to be at least 5 times as much as in Fukushima, it was in totalitarian country which tried to cover up the incident, with extremely limited medical help for people affected, and still there are only a few (literally less than 10) deaths linked in any way to it. Reactors used nowadays for civilian production of energy are much safer in pretty much every way, and any reactor that would be actually build now would be even safer - Fukushima was 40 years old at the time of the accident, and now we have much more information about what could happen and how to stop it from happening.
Also, the idea that any radioactive material would render terrain uninhabitable for millennia is quite far - fetched. Anything radioactive enough to be of major health risk has to have relatively short half-life; otherwise there is not enough radioactivity produced. If anything has a half-life long enough to survive for thousands of years in meaningful qualities, it is also producing small enough amount of radioactivity to be pretty much safe from the get go, unless there are massive quantities spread over small amount of terrain. In Charnobyl, after a thousand years, there will probably less than a square mile of land contaminated to any significant degree.