Fossil fuels will eventually run out,due to the amount of time required to replenish depleted stocks, however nuclear energy sources are abundant, produces  more energy per kilo than any other source and can be made synthetically and procured much more cheaper.

DarkAssassinTZ : Thanks,

I strongly believe that nuclear-power slowly being swept under the carpet because of its embarrassingly poor effectiveness, in all fields of expertise that its been used in. Also I think its way down the list now, where energy production is concerned.
Sorry for this sandwich post.

On3On : I will counter the response. You have said that if steam power were used it would be more viable than nuclear energy, the problem is how would you propose the energy source required to run a steam-power facility, I.e: what energy source would you use to run a steam powered facility? That is based on the presumption that there were no fossil fuels available. I'll go off track,how about the use of radioactive or nuclear substances in medicine, you have said that it is useless in all fields it has been used in. Many of the diagnostic procedures and treatments use some source of nuclear or radioactive material. As for embarrassingly poor effectiveness I would like to see the evidence for this fact. I will admit that the inappropriate use of nuclear energy sources can have detrimental effects on people and the environment, so to can the use of other energy sources. It should also be considered the mining and drilling practices and the lives placed at risk extracting mineral or fossil resources. Just remember oil is a fossil fuel and look what happened with BP.

minnowboy1 :

I implied that there has been no device I've heard of that used any direct energy from nuclear reactions,
and by "steam power facility" I meant that the radiation was only used (in that particular instance) to heat water for the energy process.

As for its use in the medical profession... I am not well spoken in that subject, so I cannot assume that it is useless in that department.
I have not drawn a blank where the effectiveness of nuclear-power is concerned, but I have referenced to allot of its history, so providing clear-cut evidence would take me some time.

By "going without" I meant with most modern resources, not just fossil fuels.
I dislike fossil fuels as much as nuclear energy, there has been extremes for both of them. (radiation contamination and the oil spills for example)

I am sorry for not being clear earlier, but thank you for pointing out where I was wrong. I'm not sure if I've covered all that you've asked me here, but I should get round to it if I didn't.

I'm on my last legs right now, sorry if this isn't coherent.
Thanks for your time.

Nuclear power is not cheap, the only reason it seems cheap is the government massively subsidises it.
The decomision costs are astronomical and the installation cant run very long.

Until we figure out cold fusion, nuclear power is inefficient and expensive. I think using mirrors in the Sahara desert to heat water is our cleanest and most effective source of power right now.

Uninhabitable lands should be getting some use, eh?

I agree. Until Uranium (actually one of the most abundant elements on our planet) gets cheap enough to extract in large proportions, It is very uneconomical. (Thank you, US Government!) The mirrors in the Sahara is a good idea especially with the long days due to being so close to the equator. But I send a counter to some of your posts. Due to past experiences ( Chernobyl mostly), there have been extreme precautionary measures taken to make environmental changes to ensure safety. (can say for Us Government. Not Japan)

No,  It shouldn't... As we all know, Nuclear Energy is unsafe and Unstable. It can damage the environment and the life... There are a bunch of good options to replace Fossil fuels.

I would highly disagree that nuclear energy will be a main energy source for any reason. For starters, a lot like all the others have said, is that it's very costly to maintain as well as extremely dangerous. We already saw what a meltdown did to Japan last year. It was devastating! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

It may be a powerful source of energy, but there's a good reason it's only best left for the stars to make, for us, for free. In fact, I don't believe nuclear energy should be a viable energy source in any situation.

On the other hand, I believe that the energy source that will far outlast any other energy source, is wind and solar energy. They are bot not very reliable alone, but when the sun is down, the wind picks up. And when the sun is up, the wind is gone. It's natural for the weather to follow that rule. This energy is also free energy, both created by the sun, and sun alone.

I'm very sorry, but I will have to disagree with you strongly that nuclear energy will become a main source.

Um any one remember Chernobyl or three mile island

Me & My Science Teacher has a wee rant about this, and we came to the conclusion that Nuclear Energy is actually an amazing source of energy and should replace fossil fuels.

There are many advantages to this source:

If you don't already know, nuclear energy is an emission-free energy source because it does not burn anything to produce electricity. Nuclear power plants produce no gases such as nitrogen oxide or sulphur dioxide that could threaten our atmosphere by causing ground-level ozone formation, smog, and acid rain. Nor does nuclear energy produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases suspected to cause global warming. Throughout the nuclear fuel cycle, the small volume of waste byproducts actually created is carefully contained, packaged and safely stored. As a result, the nuclear energy industry is the only industry established since the industrial revolution that has managed and accounted for all of its waste, preventing adverse impacts to the environment.

That is why I agree with Nuclear Energy. If I had my way, this planet would be Nuclified.

Alternate Energy sources?

I favour Corn Ethanol. (In the Mid-West Sates of the U.S. they use Ethenol Converted cars and such.)

In Major Cities? Some of our Buses, Cabs, and Cop Cars run on Natural Gas. Only 2 dollars a gallon. (But that is a fossil fuel.)

I once read an article on a Generator that can power a city that runs on Animal Dung.

My Grand Father once traded letters and mechanical genius with a dude from Massachusetts who rigged his car to run on Oxygen and Acetylene (Welding Gear.), But that was back in 1989.

There are several fuel alternates available. The Cool thing about the Ethanol Fuel is it can be grown. And the Maintenance to Convert Engines and Generators would not be Extensive or Expensive.
(Bonus: You help the Farmers score a little "bread".)

A few years back they had a saying when it came to work and demands. It was "Keep It Simple Stupid."

If one employs this principal to something like energy? The solution often becomes as clear as day.
Good Luck.

Good Luck To All.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Peace.

It is the second most abundant energy source and can run stuff until we come out with something new. So it would be the 2nd choice. 

Well there's only a limited supply of fossil fuels so we knew it had to come I guess nuclear energy would be the best solution if we ever run out of fossil fuels.

I see no one read my post on the energy subject.

The thing about energy is you might want to create a good community and economy. (People and Profit.)

My main issue with Nuclear Energy is it can all be run automated.
That means less jobs.

The only people that score with that deal are the super wealthy.
Try to keep in mind that no business is worth having if there is no one to do business with.
Plus the waste that is created has to be stored and guarded.

The animal dung generator does the same thing a Nuke-Plant can, BUT has no waste or need for a security team. You do however create jobs and community by needing animals and people to care for them.
(Bonus: Better price on local food.)

But I favour the Ethanol Fuel due to it needing to be grown. Never ending supply.
(Bonus: Better price on local food. AND ... Never ending employment for the masses.)

Granted I always think about my stomach, but I see no need to waste good resources. More energy. More jobs, More food. ... I see no major flaw to this. Please help me with the "Nuclear Energy" stuff. I have yet to see the light on this subject.
Good Luck.

Good Luck To All.
I'm done. Stick a fork in me.
Peace.

It would be a good option for when we run out of our limited supply of fossil fuels. There are some good things about it:


Cons

-It is highly explosive and extremely dangerous
-leaves high amounts of radioactive waste which is bad for the environment 
- very expensive to maintain
- bad for wildlife

Pros
-relatively low operating costs
- lots of energy from a small amount
-emits less gas into the atmosphere

You can look at it any way you want, but I think that it is probably the only other alternative we have if we run out of fossil fuels, so it is abundant and we can get a lot of energy from it. We just need to be careful on the way it effects the environment and watch the radioactive waste, and then it would be a good source of energy to us as an alternative.

There are rumors that they have mastered a new way of creating energy from oxygen in the sense of the way we as humans use it as energy for our muscles etc...who knows :p

Faith

No I don't think nuclear energy should become the main source of energy if there are no fossil fuels left because nuclear energy seems rather expensive to produce and if there is ever a(n) accident where nuclear energy is wasted it would have server long term effects of the environment and could potentially make a(n) environment un-habitable.