I do agree doubling/tripling the amount of plants would double/triple the risk – despite the safety features of the plants, human error always comes into play. If people still bring up 3 mile island as an argument against nuclear – when the max rad level received was 37 mrem (max yearly legal limit is 500 mrem)- and zero deaths – then they would jump on any mistake made in a brand new plant. Americans are always finding reasons to not trust something they don’t have a clue about.

Maybe all these people who don’t want their baby within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant can be reminded that the US Navy operates 103 reactors off the coast at any given time and are trusted to pull in to 50 ports all over the world. Also, that submariners living 20 feet from a reactor receive less radiation underway than they would on land exposed to radon/sunlight.

My point is, nuclear is an obvious solution – but unfortunately, in America, OBVIOUS MEANS NOTHING. Until the mass population starts using logic and reasoning for their decision making – and not taking political advice from ACTORS for christ sake – we will be left pitching an idea on deaf ears.

Also, solar and wind are GREAT, and should be used as well. We should not solely rely on one source of power, but they just are incapable of heating a home in the winter when it’s -30 outside and cloudy.

Seriously the above is all one has to say to prevent a nuclear plant being built within 50 miles of anyone. It may be good science, but most people are not scientists. Coal plants may release more radiation and clever engineering may have leave nuclear plants safe even in the hands of Homer Simpson, but its still screwed from a political standpoint. Its why I switched from nuclear engineering to chemical engineering, and from carbon free energy to hopefully oil.

Keep supporting solar and wind as ways to please greenpeace tards and the oil and coal companies that know they will be the only remaining providers of on demand large scale energy.

solar/thermal/wind/tidal/wave/hydro are the ultimate way to a less complicated, less centralized solution. The problem is getting there. The stepping stones in between are hybrid cars, nuclear, Natural Gas, etc.

In the short term (50 years) I do believe nuclear should play a part in assisting us in getting off of Middle East and Venezuelan oil as well as reduce the use of coal burning plants. Not as large a part as you seem to hint at. Building ~200-300 nuclear power plants to meet our needs doesn’t sound like a good plan.

Doubling or Tipling our nuclear power plants would increase the risk of human error by two to three times. Possibly even more risk since federal regulation of these plants could spread even thinner as well as the engineers capable of handling this industry are spread accross the plants. These plants need to be ultra-secure to avoid terrorism and ultra-managed to avoid human error. Except for a few minor dangers like falling glass from a solar panel or a wind turbine falling on my house, I think the danger is minimal.

Investment in 100% clean energy needs to happen at a strong steady pace going forward because the reqrds of pushing the technology could yield efficienies in those technoligies that could release our economy from the whim of groups like OPEC and the secret agendas of Presidential Administrations.

I’m a proponent of all clean and near clean technologies including Nuclear but there is no one solution. Let’s build more plants but it is not THE way.

Besides I think everyone gets a kick out of getting off the grid. It is possible with efficiency, conservation and the soon to be developed 100% clean technolgies.