We will need nuclear energy to be used more in the future.

Thanks and good luck to you. I myself actually like a lot of advances made in nuclear energy, and think it has a solid place in future energy talks, but not as large, I think, as other resources. I will concede to you that nuclear energy is, ultimately, one of the most reliable sources of renewable fuel in the world, but I do not believe it is a source of energy that can last for the next thousand years, at least not as the primary source of fuel. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear reactors don"t "explode" when they suffer a meltdown, but incidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl are bound to occur (rendering the surrounding areas unfit for any kind of life indefinitely as a result of fallout, http://library.thinkquest.org... ). Every precaution is taken to avoid these, but the impact of a meltdown is still catastrophic (1 in a million still makes this: http://www.eia.gov...) Uranium is already a resource lacking in abundance, and the enrichment process takes time. As such, thorium is rapidly being used to replace traditional uranium, since it does not suffer from the same overheating problems as U-238 (nearly no meltdowns). http://www.power-technology.com... But for some reason, this is an unfunded project. Thorium would potentially destroy any need for plutonium-uranium reactors and create much more sustainable plants. SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org... But as with all nuclear energy projects, Thorium produces radon-220 and radiation that, if leaked into nearby water supplies after being in contact with a reactor, could produce terrible long-term effects, increasing the risks of all kinds of disease, particularly lung cancer. And since thorium has a half-life longer than the age of Earth, it wouldn"t go away any time soon. And it still requires the costly equipment. So here are the major cons of long-term nuclear energy: Though risks are negligible for all nuclear projects, the effects of that ONE meltdown or leak would still be around for, potentially, centuries. Plus, these plants produce all kinds of radioactive waste that, given the half-life of radioactive materials, would need to be stored for thousands of years which, again, could have serious long-term damage involved. There is no doubt that nuclear energy will play a major role in a fossil-fuel-free future. But what Walt Disney didn"t see was how it could be disruptive to our environment and our health just as much as it is beneficial. So while they may currently produce such massive sources of energy (http://www.eia.gov...), costly nuclear reactors are probably best suited for more energy-heavy projects, like, say, spaceships. Or lighting Hong Kong. Taxpayer money in Industrial countries would be best spent improving safer and cheaper forms of energy. A wind farm has a low return now, but technological advances could set it above nuclear plants one day in dollar-to-kilowatt ratio. Same with solar energy and hydroelectricity. It"s all about technology. Uranium, in a sense, is also a fossil fuel- minerals only last so long before they run out. Even if we do build a lot of plants, a resource like that won"t be around forever, and we all know what humans will do for important rocks. Secondly, these resources would not be beneficial to poor countries. http://nuclearinfo.net... India, the UK, Japan, and the US may make great use of a few new cooling towers, but West Africans are much better off recycling e-waste to fashion makeshift power supplies in their backyard. Ultimately, these plants will only benefit societies in which they are affordable and there is not a central group trying to keep these influences out. So why not focus on projects like this: http://www.businessweek.com..., that just about anyone can make, use, and afford? My apologies if I sound a bit jumbled- I'm trying to type this on a mobile device and it's getting a bit scatterbrained. Maybe next time I can make it a little bit more sensible. All I'm saying is that as technology expands and grows, so too will renewable energy products- and given the risks, nuclear energy might best be left as a secondary source of power, much like wind and solar are now.