Like modern coal plants, modern nuclear power plants can be made that produce far less waste, and the waste is less hazardous. They can also be made much more safe and more cost-effective. The problem is that all the plants operating today are of antiquated design and many, if not most, should be replaced. Once again, we can thank the Greens and the Leftists. They've made it impossible to get new plants built, even to replace existing aging ones. In fact, many of the "newer" plants operating today were practically outdated by the time they first came online, thanks to lawsuits and other obstructionist tactics by the Left.
The security issue is over-hyped by the media to further their Leftist anti-nuclear agenda. I'm not saying there is zero risk, but a nuclear plant is a fairly hard target to hit. Terrorists prefer soft targets. There are much easier ways to create havoc and destruction in this country. And newer nuclear plants could be made even more secure than existing plants that were designed when terrorism was not as great a risk-factor.
The even better alternative is to become less dependent to "grid" living. Become decentralized by using solar, wind, biomass and fuel cells.
While some improvement can be made in this area, for the most part, what you are proposing is a myth: more Leftist/Green propaganda. Large centralized power plants will alway be more efficient than small distributed power generators. And as for alternative energies, they are still not cost-effective (the main reason they are not being adopted) and have their own share of problems (including environmental problems).
For example, solar cells are extremely expensive and have a very low efficiency. If a homeowner installed solar cells on the roof to generate a reasonable amount of energy, it would take over 20 years just to break even on the initial investment (not including any major repairs or upgrades). That's a lot of money up front for a small return amortized over many years. Very few people can afford such an investment. Even then, it would only work for select homeowners: not every home has the right environmental conditions for it to be effective. And what about condos, townhouses, and apartments where the roof square footage per unit occupancy (and thus electric consumption) is very low?
Wind power is problematic because--contrary to the myths--there are very few places in this country where the right environmental conditions exist to make wind turbine power efficient and cost effective. They can't operate where the wind is too weak or where the wind is too strong. So you have to find a large, uninhabited area where the wind is the right speed--and remains within the required limits consistently though out most of the year. On top of that, the area needs to be relatively accessible for maintenance, etc. That is why there are only a handful of wind farms in the US. There are just three in the entire state of California: Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio. Oh yeah, remember all those environmentalists that are gaga over alternative energy? Well, some of them want to shut down the Altamont Pass wind farms: it appears that some birds are being killed by the turbine blades.
Fuel cells are another Greenie pipe dream. Sounds great until you start to learn about them. First thing, most fuel cells being proposed are based on hydrogen because it is so clean and "green". What the proponents fail to mention is just where does that hydrogen come from? It's not like you can just pump it out of the ground. No, you must manufacture it by electrolysis of water. In other words, you must use electricity to break the chemical bonds of water in order to produce its raw components of hydrogen and oxygen. As as we all (should) know from physics, you are going to use more energy in producing the hydrogen than you will get back from it. So ask your Green friends this question: where are they going to get the electricity to produce the hydrogen (not to mention the energy used to compress and liquefy it, transport it, and store it)? While you're at it, ask them where the electricity will come from to power all the electric cars they are proposing we adopt?
I won't even bother addressing the extreme hazards and technical difficulties in handling, storing, and using liquid hydrogen.
Your arguments are based on current costs while discussing the future. Failing to note how the utilities industry over shadows alternative power. You need to look at it as how to make alternative power the norm. With that, you are aware that power consumption by consumers needs to be addressed. You said something of offense: "So ask your Green friends this question"
My response? I'll email Bush and some in the DOE right away!