The thing that makes me hesitant in supporting nuclear is that it just doesn't seem like the best possible long-term solution. I understand that it is perfectly safe under strict regulation and with the help of technology, and maybe it can even be sustainable in a human timeframe if there are enough advancements in the technology. However, I just don't understand why we should go to all this bother. Shoving the nuclear waste under a mountain in Nevada? Okay, maybe it's contained. But nature can do some crazy things, and it's amazing how things change in 20,000 years. Also, humans make errors. The whole process is dependent on technology and being really careful.

On the other hand, the main arguments against renewables are that they're intermittent and that they don't provide enough energy to meet the demand fully. They are intermittent, that is true, but when they are all combined there is considerable overlap. Also, when energy storage technology develops further, I don't think that it will be an issue any longer. Similarly, if we continue to develop renewables, they will become more efficient and will be able to meet our energy demands. Also, we don't need to be using nearly as much power as we are - a little more effort put into conservation would be a big help.

It seems to me that we can pour energy and resources into working on either, and end up with a good supply of energy. Both systems have the potential to be sustainable, reliable, and efficient. However, I think that nuclear has more "cons", so why not go for renewables?

Oh yeah, and my favourite argument against renewables: "Wind turbines and solar panels are ugly". Yeah, and that nuclear power plant would make an ideal honeymoon destination.