Maybe, but then would have to get used to glowing in the dark, open weeping ulcerations, and swaths of land being rendered uninhabitable for centuries. If there were better safety features on the reactors and less chance of natural disasters causing catastrophic breakdowns perhaps it would be a better alternative. But take those possible problems and the unimaginable GREED that humans possess and you have a recipe for disaster after disaster. And the disaster from a nuclear meltdown is the "gift" that keeps on giving.

Yes there are many kinds of nuclear, but in the past the type of nuclear generation was decided by our stupid politicians to supply plutonium for atomic weapons, a safe form of nuclear reactor called LFTR was under development in 1980 but was cancelled by president Nixon.

Nuclear reactors have been built to power aircraft carriers, submarines, even satellites, and they don't have to be huge dangerous plants, but nobody has allowed research and development for small safe reactors yet.

Yes, but many consider natural gas safer, AND the plants are MUCH cheaper to build.

Alternative energies like solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and so on are much cleaner options. And they can be implement on a individual level. I don't foresee us being able to have small nuke generators in our back yards anytime soon!