I have always found the nuclear power debate very interesting.

Most people I know are vehemently against nuclear power and for good reasons. My parents and many of their friends still remember Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island scare. While I have often heard that it is unlikely that something like that could happen in the United States, even the slight possibility of a nuclear accident is very scary. The Yucca mountain fiasco and the problem of where to store the incredibly long-lived waste is another problem, especially since an increase in nuclear power production would mean an increase in waste that we need to store. I have also heard that nuclear power is heavily subsidized and in the end is not cost effective. Then, of course, there is the argument that in a world where terrorism is a real threat, nuclear power plants would be prime targets and could make us very vulnerable.

But then there is the other side of the argument, pointing out that nuclear power has a very high capacity and does not emit carbon dioxide or methane, very potent greenhouse gases. Respected scientist who came up with the Gaia hypothesis, James Lovelock, argues that nuclear power may be the only way for us to escape the impending threat of global warming (see: http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english
/love-indep-24-05-04.htm). Jared Diamond, author of Collapse and Guns, Germs, and Steel, has come out in support of nuclear power as well. I have heard some people argue that unless we plan to significantly reduce world energy consumption, nuclear power is the only way for us to satisfy the demand for energy.

It is an interesting debate and I am interested in what you think about this issue or other arguments that I have not heard about.

I was just reading that, apparently, it is possible to "reprocess" (recycle) the waste materials from nuclear power plants. The United States used to have reprocessing plants, but got rid of them in the 1970s. (The Carter administration wanted to discourage worldwide nuclear buildup, but was unsuccessful.) However, several European countries still have these plants, and Japan is on the move to build one of its own.

I recommend this interesting web page:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq
.html

Also, in my public policy class last year, we talked about some of the primary factors that inspire fear in people. One of the main factors is the degree to which people feel that they can/cannot control the situation. For example, although the likelihood of being in a car accident is MUCH greater than the likelihood of being in a airplane accident, people are much more likely to be afraid of flying, because in a car the driver herself at least has some measure of control over the situation.

People make irrational decisions and form irrational opinions based on fear. However, having said that, I don't necessarily think that nuclear power is the ultimate solution to our entire energy problem. I think the "ultimate solution" will actually have to be a combination of different solutions. Another very productive source of energy is wind power, in areas that are breezy enough for wind farms.