i agree, but nuclear power even if only a tiny thing goes wrong, thats a very very bad thing. It takes 3 times as much to build a nuclear plant than it does to build enough solar panels to get that much power. We could spend the only on building 2 times the solar panels and have a lot of extra power and we would be able to absorb more power. Also there are 1000's of other altun power that works all years around. Example would be building a giant 'solar' elevator into space and use a giant array of solar panels to gain power (because in space the sun is always bright an clear) and we would have a limitless supply of power.

"I see your point but you must remember that we can't get solar power or wind power all the time"

LOL...I just LOVE this argument from those that champion "more of the same" (coal, oil, nuclear, etc.) when it comes to America's future energy needs. The FACT is that the USA is basically the Saudi Arabia of wind power, and that there are such things as batteries to store power for times when the wind isn't blowing or the Sun isn't shining.

Now imagine a day when the wind isn't blowing anywhere in the USA, the Sun isn't out at all, the Earth isn't being heated from below by molten magma, the tides are not going in or coming out along any of the USA's coastlines, there are no waves along any of the USA's coastlines, and there is no water flowing across the land via river & streams. Got that?? I didn't think so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Wind_Resources_and_Transmission_Lines_map.jpg

"even we can how many percent that these kinds of energy are able to meet our demands."

Well, if the necessary resources are dedicated to it...wind power can easily generate 10-20% of the USA's power, hydro power can easily generate 20-30% of the USA's power, geothermal can easily generate 10-20% of the USA's power, and wave & tidal can easily generate up to maybe 4-5% of the USA's power...with the basically unlimited potential of solar power & whatever small amounts of fossil fuels (at much reduced usage levels) taking up the rest of the slack. In fact, the USA could easily cut it's usage of power by 10-20% through conservation if more resources were dedicated to that effort.

"nuclear power plans may now cost us a little more than other kinds of energy but advantages of them are immerse in long time."

In the USA, the federal govt. has paid $74 billion for energy subsidies to support nuclear power & fossil fuels from 1973-2003. Nuclear power alone accounted for nearly $50 billion of this expenditure. During this same time frame, renewable energy technologies & energy efficiency only received a total of $26 billion.

"Every nuclear power plant in the USA (past, present, or future) is a permanent nuclear waste dump. Moderate to high level nuclear waste can be radioactive for around 100,000 years! That doesn't sound very "safe" to me!"

First of all, you don't know the future. there are many plans for future nuclear power use that would eliminate the danger of nuclear waste. They are not finalized yet but for the time being, the risks from nuclear waste is much lower than you may think. (see link)

"Also, just look at some of the horrible safety & security issues that some nuclear plants have had...namely the VT Yankee plant. That plant has one of the worst records in the industry."

The reason the VT Yankee plant has had so many problems is that the safety inspections done on it did not pass code yet it was operated anyway. They knew there was a problem but they didn't fix it. There have been stricter measures to enforce the safety policies now (see link)

"Finally, every, single nuclear power plant in the world is a potential deadly terrorist attack site."

Despite what you may think, the government isn't stupid. They have thought of this and have taken measures to avoid any problems (also see link)