Why Not Nuclear Energy?

WorldChanging observes

There’s been an effort, of late, most notably in Wired to convince Americans (and others) that the answer to climate change is nuclear power. Clean energy advocates argue nuclear power presents the wrong answer for a bunch of reasons: it spews out radioactive waste which will be with us for a longer time than human beings have been farming; with the need to mine uranium, build the plants themselves and build storage facilities, there are questions as to both how much nuclear power can be brought online how quickly and how much CO2 will actually be saved; nuclear is actually already more expensive that windpower, when subsidies are removed; the nuclear industry is, based on its record, one of the least trustworthy business groups around; and nuclear power — as we’re seeing with concerns in Iran — is tied at the hip to nuclear weapons.

I see other issues:

A nuclear power plant produces energy for millions of consumers from a single location. Centralized systems are vulnerable to outages which affect all the users that are dependent on those systems. Decentralized systems, like solar cells on the roofs of buildings/homes, are much more resiliant and dependable.

Terrorism makes nuclear power plants a huge liability. A melt-down of a single nuclear power plant would kill thousands of people, cause cascading power outages, and demoralize our country. Terrorists know this and will be targeting these kinds of vulnerabilities in the future.