Is nuclear power a safe alternative to fossil fuel?

This isn't really a physics question, but yes, it is a good alternative to fossil fuels as an energy source. As nearly any other technology, it is safe when properly managed. Fast breeder reactors can be used to reduce and recycle waste from standard fission reactors. Adding the potential risk of avalanche global warming tips the safety balance in favor of nuclear.

Is nuclear power safe? Yes, we know how to build and operate nuclear power plants in a safe way. In fact we know how to build powers that will shut automatically (without human interaction and without out computer interaction) long before any dangerous situation may occur. These shut down mechanisms are purely the result of the laws of physics nothing more. So if the people who design and run a nuclear power plant have safety as their main priority, then there is little to worry about as far as accidents are concerned.

Now you ask about nuclear waste. First you should realize that the volume of nuclear waste is much smaller than the waste produced by coal or other "tradition" power plants, but it is also more dangerous. But nuclear engineers know how to reduce the volume, and life of this waste dramatically. Over 95% of this waste can be put back into a reactor and burned; most of the rest can be destroyed in accelerators. What remains is a very small fraction of the waste and has a half life~30 years compared to 100,000 years. But government regulations currently prevent us from reprocessing and reusing this spent fuel.

Now let’s look at coal power. Coal power plants produce thousands of tons of waste every year. Where a nuclear power plant produces only a few tons of waste a year. Also coal power plants release more (yes I said more) radiation to their environment than nuclear power plants do.

Is nuclear power safe? It is if we are mature in using it. Is it clean? Yes if we reprocess.

A lot of people are against nuclear because they believe it to harm the environment. They believe it to be dangerous. And it can be. But if instead of protesting nuclear power all together, we start demanding newer safer reactors and we start demanding reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, then we will have a safe clean energy source.

Sad to say, but like so many things, it all simply boils down to economics.

Hydro electric plants use no fuel - but they are enormously expensive to build and maintain - and, they too can create a variety of ecological and environmental concerns and, obviously, there are only so many locations that one can build a dam.

Nuclear power generation was originally touted as "electricity that would be too cheap to meter"

That statement proved to be one that came out of some utopia dreamland! No one really knows what to do with the spent fuel - and that's been compared to building a new home with no bathrooms in it. Ugh!

Fossil fuels - essentially coal and oil - are abundant and relatively efficient. But then we have the numerous and valid environmental concerns - sulfur, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, solid particulates and all the other garbage that the tall stacks spew into our atmosphere. However, much progress has been made in reducing a lot of these emissions.

I'm sure that alternate energy sources will be developed in the future, but in the mean time, I suspect another spike in oil prices and we'll see a spike in new construction of nuclear power plants right along with it.

The pitfalls of nuclear power are...

1. Accidents are inevitable

2. Nuclear waste produced from nuclear power plants remains dangerously radioactive for thousands of years and must be stored in a location as to not contaminate ground water. Much of this waste can be enriched and reused as fuel but it isn't done because of the potential for creation of weapons grade material.

4. More refined nuclear fuel means more chances for terrorists.

5. Nuclear power plants often require large amounts of water intake which can negatively impact the local ecosystem.

6. Even though it's an enticing alternative to fossil fuels when it comes to electricity generation, nuclear powered tractors, cars, and other machinery isn't feasable.

I think new houses in sunny places should run at least partially on solar power, and for cars there are many alternatives to good old oil.

What's scary is when your power company runs commercials telling you how wonderful and clean coal is. *cough*

nuclear is not perfectly safe. Sure reactors have made progress but human error remains possible. And then you've got the transport of nuclear fuel to the plant, and the transport of the used nuclear fuel to a waste re-processing plant, and the transport of the unuseable part to some storage area.

It's not perfectly safe but it's not like we have a choice here. The total of the known reserves of oil plus gas plus coal can, at best, fuel mankind for 100 years, more probably just 60 or 70.

Whereas there is enough uranium to fuel mankind for millions of years.

So if we want to maintain our standard of living, we have no choice.

Of course alternative energy sources should be developed (think of how much could have been done if Bush had spent $100 billion on alternative energies, rather than on a useless war to set his hands on Iraq's oil reserves). Of course energy conservation should be developed (why should the US need twice as much energy, per dollar of GDP, than either Europe or Japan?).

So as there is no choice, there really isn't a question.

Well you have to take into account the possiblity of accidents.

In addition the waste is very dangerous for 100's of years.

The best plan is to develop the hydrogen fuel power plants. The germans have a stealth sub that uses hydrogen fuel cells so it can run completely silently.

Nuclear is a quick and available alternative to fossile fuel. It is the only thing readily available to generate the power we need.

I think we need to completely focus on development of alternatives.

Nuclear power is actually one of the safest forms of power. As far as toxic waste, the burning of coal releases more toxic compounds into the atmosphere than nuclear power, including more radioactive waste. If constructed and used properly, nuclear power is a very safe alternative to coal.

it is THE safest form of energy production and cleanest on the front end. We got paranoid back in the days of 3 mile island and stopped building plants. Much of europe gets a majority of their electric power from nuclear - not that I want to copy them, but you can see a very long term safety record with nuclear.

Nuclear power can be used as an alternative source of fuel, only wen, there is no accidents created. It's very harmful, if there is any accident, wen handling nuclear reacter. Else, it is a best source, since, Uranium, is available , in abundant.

Yes.

Over 75% of electric power in France is produces by nuclear power. They have over 50 nuclear reactors.