CarboToad

So long as you can keep things safe in your nuclear plants, it's a ridiculous decision to go for any other energy type.

Edit: Downvoters, please provide an alternative. Solar, wind don't pay back your investment for over 20 years, even in the sunniest and windiest places. By that time they need to be replaced, and haven't produced electricity at a constant rate, so can't really help a country's needs. Coal is unsustainable. Don't even talk about water, waves, etc. It has to be nuclear.

Another edit: Apparently, solar's payback is a bit better than wind. 7-10 years. (Thanks, ScotchLobsterTail)

I'm an elec eng as well, and every one I've spoken to in my career goes for nuclear.

Nuclear or Wind&Solar?

Nice. Well informed. I didn't realise how much more efficient solar panels had gotten! Do you agree with me that as electricity becomes more expensive, these sustainable sources will become relatively cheaper, so we're naturally going to go to an equilibrium using sustainable sources? That is unless everybody switches to nuclear, or new methods are used...

Le Goog will be happy to explain the basics of nuclear energy vs coal to you! Long story short, we're running out of coal (and it pollutes the environment a lot). It will just get more and more expensive as we struggle to find it. Nuclear uses really small amounts of uranium to produce really large amounts of electricity. It's not entirely sustainable, but the estimates state that it will last anything from 72 to 47 000 years. However, there are other ways to make nuclear energy (edit: thorium), so we don't have to stick to just uranium.