A slim majority (52%) of Americans support nuclear energy, which is more support than a total sample of people in the world would give it (38%), according to an Ipsos-Mori poll. That seems optimistic considering all the fears and outrage unleashed after the Tohoku earthquake and resulting tsunami battered the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant in Japan on March 11. 54% of Americans admitted to boycotting at least one Japanese product after the tsunami. And now, there are reports of "crises" at nuclear plants in Nebraska. Popular anger is "flowing" in all directions, when "...the nuclear lobby is powerful and it is doubtless that the agency (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) has been infiltrated by nuke friendly types who ensure that the reactors keep reacting and the money keeps flowing, like the Missouri River."
As those people along the river know, water has a mind of its own - or no mind. It just goes where it wills. There is no straight line from anger to policy, because American political democracy has found a way to steer clear of the flood plains. "Ours is a regulatory capitalism where regulators and the regulated are intertwined in symbiotic cartel-forming ways that often make working the halls of Congress and regulator offices far more profitable for firms and organizations than struggling in labs, stores, and service organizations to earn consumer patronage." One solution is, as Shapiro and McCarthy argue, is to regulate the regulators. Another libertarian solution would involve the diffusion of power to fit the diffusion of knowledge. Finally, there is unchecked populist rage.
I see no reason why all three are not applicable. Only I think people need to deploy rage, regulation, and diffusion for the right end. In this case, it is not so much a question of picking a magic bullet technology to fuel the economy, but rather the right combination of technologies, corporations, regulatory bodies, and consumer watchdogs. And, I think nuclear power has a place in that list. In other words, it is a question of infrastructure, not green technology or anti-nukes or anti-carbon, that should guide policy choices. As barath argues, "...we're all going to have to use a lot less energy.". The economy will need everything it can get.
There's a short, fast-paced discussion of nuclear energy I would recommend. David Sirota is probably the worst of the contributors. There is also some research that points out, that the more one hears about nuclear, the better one's opinions becomes of the technology, too.