In light of oil-related problems (prices, Mideast problems) should the USA turn to domestic nuclear energy?

I believe that WITH THE RIGHT SAFETY PROTOCOLS nuclear energy as a replacement for heating oil (as well as natural gas) and conventional electricity would quite possibly be the most efficient alternative in the long run. Yes, this would be extremely expensive in the short term. Of course, this also entails spending huge amounts on nuclear containment safety---I think this might be worth it. Of course, if there could be no truly safe safety mechanisms and regulations, this would be flirting with disaster.





Any way (within reason) to diminish the strategic value of the Middle East would be a very good thing. Gradually making oil far less valuable might be a good start.





Anyhow---opinions and feedback?In light of oil-related problems (prices, Mideast problems) should the USA turn to domestic nuclear energy?
I like nuclear energy. But people still feel like there are unsolved problems with nuclear energy. Especially storage of nuclear waste. There's still lot of controversy on storage issues. And with problems with Mideast extremists and its followers, securities of those nuclear materials is also an issue. It is pretty good option, but not exactly slam dunk.In light of oil-related problems (prices, Mideast problems) should the USA turn to domestic nuclear energy?
Nuclear power might be the most efficient, and quickest method to de-link ourselves from the economic/military/corporate tangle in the Middle East for the short run - 20 to 100 years from now, but the toxicity of nuclear residue lasts for tens of thousands of years.





The mainstream media continually ignores or downplays the ';nuclear residue toxicity'; issue - the long-term effects of nuclear waste. If the Romans had nuclear power, somebody today and even for the next several thousands of years would have the responsibility of guaranteeing that they were continually monitored and safeguarded against human activities. We can't clearly decide for ourselves with today's waste... Why should it be any easier for a world or group of nations to decide how to take care of a past civilization's errors at a scale like that? I still wonder how the heck we can guard against it eventually getting into our water supplies for so long, but that is completely ignored, or often some statistically-generated result that indicates some measure of hope that some geologic change doesn't occur can be found, but how can one really know considering the scale and time considerations of the problem. Hope, is a miserable strategy for anything, particularly radioactive containment.





Certainly, nuclear power is an option, but the long-term effects just don't make it as a viable choice for me nor millions of other people around the world, many scientists included.





Go solar. Incredible amounts of solar power could be harnessed, and the research into photovoltaics is just starting...


--------------------------------------鈥?br>

(BTW, I recall some 20+years ago an article in a magazine, Atlantic Magazine I think it was, between various members of the 'intelligencia' (nuclear engineers, linguists, legal experts and the like) that discussed the question, ';What type of symbols should be used to warn generations, thousands of years in the future, that the contents of this area's nuclear waste burial site should be avoided, in effect, forever?';





The article was very interesting, but unfortunately, no solution - no set nor series of symbols - was decided upon. The closest thing was the regular ';skull and crossbones'; on a large ceramic tile. Some ceramic materials can last hundreds of thousands of years undamaged except by brute physical destruction.





I think the better way is to avoid the problem by not creating it in the first place.)
No. Good safety protocols have yet to be developed, and even those are susceptible to human error. We should rather turn to solar, geothermic, electric, biologic and wind power instead.
The last nuclear plants were economic disasters of overruns.





There is enormous amounts of money skimmed off of a nuclear plant under the less than straight and narrow business and oversight today.





Placing vast sums of money into construction of nuclear plants with the inherent massive black holes that disappear a large slice also places the control of the electricity in the hands of large corporations, even private investors.





Review the actions of Enron in California.





The same money that is loaned and made by large investors can provide vast development of solar, wind, geothermal, and newer technologies.





Economically nuclear plants have a terrible tract record. Socially all energy is controlled, and abused by small a small handful of men. Abuse along the Enron lines is wide spread in South America, it is time to spread the control and economic base.





Germany has developed wind and solar farms.


We must do the same, for the same reasons, and widen our newer technologies to create new industries.
Yes we should along with spent fuel reprocessing as they do in France. This would be expensive but if they could recover the 4 trillion lost in the Pentagon we could have a few. Modern nukes are very safe and reliable. Oil is just too expensive to be using it for generating electricity.